Apparently VP of Environmental Affairs isn’t thinking big enough or perhaps I filled out the wrong application.  Look what I saw on Channel 3 News.

I am passionate about responsible business practices.  Not only have I been actively studying, practicing, teaching, and coaching on it my own businesses for the past 20 years, but these experiences were built on top of  a foundation of being raised by a family of responsible business owners for the first 20 years of my life.  Responsible business is smart business.

These days I have come to say that “green business is smart business™” because green business is about responsible business and conscious capitalism.  It recognizes the interconnected and complex self-adapting nature of the systems in which business operates.

Having said this, whenever I get into a discussion about responsible business, green business, or conscious capitalism inevitably Milton Friedman and Adam Smith are brought up as counter arguments.   These men were brilliant and spoke in a language of their respective era.  And that language issue is critical to understanding and communicating about green business, responsible business, and conscious capitalism.

To borrow the subtitle of Dr. Frank Luntz’ book, Words That Work, “It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear” and a quote from a great movie “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” The debates get stuck in one of three ways: rhetoric, ignorance, or school yard labeling/bullying.   This was beautifully illustrated in a written 2005 debate I read this morning between Whole Foods’ John Mackey, Milton Friedman, and Cypress Semiconductor’s T.J. Rodgers.  “Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business”

Make sure you read it all the way to the end with John Mackey’s rebuttal and closing comments.  I found two notions quite telling.

The first about the similarity between Friedman and his views

Toward the end of his critique Friedman says his statement that “the social responsibility of business [is] to increase its profits” and my statement that “the enlightened corporation should try to create value for all of its constituencies” are “equivalent.” He argues that maximizing profits is a private end achieved through social means because it supports a society based on private property and free markets. If our two statements are equivalent, if we really mean the same thing, then I know which statement has the superior “marketing power.” Mine does.

Both capitalism and corporations are misunderstood, mistrusted, and disliked around the world because of statements like Friedman’s on social responsibility. His comment is used by the enemies of capitalism to argue that capitalism is greedy, selfish, and uncaring. It is right up there with William Vanderbilt’s “the public be damned” and former G.M. Chairman Charlie Wilson’s declaration that “what’s good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa.” If we are truly interested in spreading capitalism throughout the world (I certainly am), we need to do a better job marketing it. I believe if economists and business people consistently communicated and acted on my message that “the enlightened corporation should try to create value for all of its constituencies,” we would see most of the resistance to capitalism disappear.

In response to T.J.Rodgers school yard tactics, Mackey responded diplomatically by deftly exposing the inaccuracies of Rodgers attacks on Whole foods and then turning the mirror on Rodgers business to prove his point.

Rodgers says with passion, “I am proud of what the semiconductor industry does–relentlessly cutting the cost of a transistor from $3 in 1960 to three-millionths of a dollar today.” Rodgers is entitled to be proud. What a wonderful accomplishment this is, and the semiconductor industry has indeed made all our lives better. Then why not consistently communicate this message as the purpose of his business, instead of talking all the time about maximizing profits and shareholder value?

This written debate is a brilliant example of how the language used can shape the conversation and what people hear.   One of the key points that so many miss in debates of this kind is the fundamental notion of what is the purpose of business.   All too often the focus is on responsibility to the investors, but was is the purpose of the business in the first place.    In the late 90s whenever I ran across an article or story of a company or a product gone bad I was continually ask the fundamental question “Did anyone ask whether they should do it in the first place?”   I fully agree and have practiced John Mackey’s business’ noble purpose:

Like medicine, law, and education, business has noble purposes: to provide goods and services that improve its customers’ lives, to provide jobs and meaningful work for employees, to create wealth and prosperity for its investors, and to be a responsible and caring citizen.

In researching (RED) I came across this excellent little film/story.

Filmmaker Armen Evrensel’s winning film from the (RED) Vision Showcase at the Vail Film Festival. Binty illustrates the (RED) themes: “Be a Good-Looking Samaritan” and “We Are The People We’ve Been Waiting For.”

Binty - (RED) Vision Film Competition Winner

Perhaps Spiritual Cinema Circle will pick it up as one of their short films.

After the umpteen time of seeing an “inspi(RED)” tee shirt I decided to go look into what it was all about.  At first I assumed it was a Best Buy thing considering it seemed that everyone I met that worked there was wearing one only to find out that that it was actually a Gap thing.  So I went off looking at The Gap to find the answer and was impressed not only by the project but the scope of it.  They have partnered with the world’s most iconic brands (Hallmark, Apple, Gap, Dell) to produce (RED) products.

From the (RED) website

(RED) was created by Bono and Bobby Shriver, Chairman of DATA to raise awareness and money for The Global Fund by teaming up with the world’s most iconic brands to produce (PRODUCT)RED branded products. A percentage of each (PRODUCT)RED product sold is given to The Global Fund. The money helps women and children affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa.

All funds generated by sales of (PRODUCT) RED products (aka (RED) money) will support Global Fund-financed programs that positively impact the lives of women and children affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa. (RED) money provides access to education, nutrition, counseling, medical services, and the two pills a day they need to help stay alive. This includes programs in countries such as Rwanda, which has a proven track record and ambitious targets. For example, in the past two years, Rwanda has increased the number of people receiving treatments for HIV/AIDS ten-fold.

Be inspi(RED), be uncenso(RED), be ado(RED), be chee(RED).

At long last, after nearly seven years of waiting, I have successfully secured the domain name conversationcircles.com - the more logical domain for a website dedicated to learning about conversation circles.  I even confused myself when verbally sharing the link with people.  Now I no longer have to worry.  Both links will take you there.

In honor of the new domain, I have updated the website, migrated it to a Wordpress architecture, and moved servers to obtain faster service.

Check it out and if you’ve never taken a look at my first video on conversation circles - watch it there!

http://www.conversationcircles.com
or
http://www.conversationcircle.com

This came across my desk today. Fascinating presentation by Clay Shirky about gin, television, and the “cognitive surplus” that he gave at Web 2.0. The transcript can be found here

This really speaks to the new thinking that is and needs to continue to be generated as we awaken from our long sleep. This is one form of interaction at play in conscious capitalism. The question is not Where will we find the time?  the better question is - Where is the mouse not? or rather, “every place that a reader or a listener or a viewer or a user has been locked out, has been served up passive or a fixed or a canned experience, and ask ourselves, “If we carve out a little bit of the cognitive surplus and deploy it here, could we make a good thing happen?”

Three years ago at the Toronto Film Fest I saw a delightful film called Millions - A magically realism story as only a 7 year old can see it - about ethics, love, being human, and fortune in more ways than one. I just picked it up on dvd and remembered just how charming it was and realized I never posted the review of it.

Want a magical and lift your spirits movie? Rent or Buy Millions. This was one of my favorite movies of the Toronto Film Festival that year. “A heartwarming story of two little boys, faith, miracles . . . a whole lot of money.” It is a charming story told from the perspective of Damian, a 7-year old boy, who uses imagination, fantasy and faith to make sense of his confusing world. When upon receiving a gift from the sky of a suitcase full of cash he and his practical 9 year old brother need to decide what to do with it. The catch, they have seven days before the money becomes worthless as the British pound sterling transitions to euros. This is not a predictable movie, perhaps the final outcome and moral but how they get there is full of unexpected twists, gotcha moments, originality, mysticism, and heartwarming spirit. A truly lovely film. The score is wonderful, the setting is lush and green, and the little actors are enchanting. You won’t regret it.

Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3734372633/

PS Keep an eye out for some really cool halos.