SCOPE on Stage

The scope of SCOPE is expanding. Not just throughout the Philippines. During the Asian Forum on Corporate Social Responsibility (AFCSR) my SCOPE program faced and convinced an international audience. SCOPE is an approach to embed producer groups into the value chain of Philippine-based companies, thus creating jobs and income opportunities. With more than 35 implemented projects since 2004, SCOPE has become a brand name, and a source of insight.

I felt both, proud and honored, when the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) invited me as a speaker for this year’s AFCSR to share my experiences in a session titled 'Identifying Opportunities to Create Shared Value'.

Already, the discourse about the concept of Creating Shared Value is distorted. Too much emphasis is put on the word “Shared”, instead of the important word “Value”. I therefore opened my presentation with a quote from Michael Porter, a renowned Harvard professor and expert on “Strategic CSR” and now, the concept of “Creating Shared Value”.

He said: “The real opportunity is to figure out how we can create more value and therefore the farmer will actually be rewarded for the reality of participating in creating more value. But not through charity, but by actually expanding the pie. By creating economic value but also creating social value at the same time."

I like that quote because he pinpoints the essence of economic and social development: the need to enable people to become productive members of society. For one reason or the other—lack of market information, lack of access to technology, lack of skills—some people are left out of the loop. Integrating those people into the local economy is what helps them improve their skills and income situation, while at the same time improving the business environment for local companies who are in dire need of raw materials, and skilled labor.

More than 80 people listened to me explaining the heart of SCOPE: the Value Chain. How can we talk about wealth distribution without talking about wealth creation? Nodding heads and approving facial expressions during my presentation proved the SCOPE approach right.

It seems the days of philanthropy and charity often dubbed as 'Corporate Social Responsibility' (CSR) are finally over. People realized that taking from the rich and giving to the poor--which I call the Robin Hood principle—is not a solution to fight poverty or advance a developing country. It creates dependencies among the recipients and an unnatural strain on companies’ competitiveness.

Unfortunately, that is what various groups—NGOs, civil society groups, foreign aid agencies—used to promote. Under the cover of CSR, companies all over the world were 'asked' to invest parts of their profits into social programs, detached from their core-business, and without any bearing to their bottom lines.

Today, the corporate sector is acknowledged for its expertise and competence to expand the pie. At least in Mr. Porter’s and my world. The rest of the world will hopefully soon follow.

Embroidered Wisdom

Without discrediting the art of embroidery I do have my doubts with the wisdoms (or subtle indoctrination?) they display.

This one I found at my doctor’s office. I’d title it “Twisted Standards for Personal Success”. It reads:

To laugh often and much
To win the respect of intelligent people
And the affection of children.
To earn the appreciation of honest critics…

For the first time I thought “wow, this is actually nice…”. Then came the punch line that completely threw me off:

And endure the betrayal of false friends.
[...]
This is to have succeeded.

What?

First, what is a false friend? Isn’t a “false friend” an oxymoron? A person who is false is not a friend. Congratulations to everybody who can tell a friend from a non-friend.

Second, why would I endure the betrayal from anybody, let alone an identified “false friend” (read: non-friend or even enemy)?

Nobody with a spark of self-respect would endure betrayal. No matter who betrays. Friendship is based on mutual respect and trust. If one is missing or has been abused it’s time to call it off!

Strictly not recommended!

The double layered, indecisive, fact-evasive, and indirect language spoken (and written) in the Philippines is something to get used to. Reading between the lines becomes a second nature after a while.

The latest message which might need deciphering for the less experienced ear comes from the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (Philvocs). Due to increased volcanic activity at Taal Lake, Philvocs issued Alert Level 1.

Although there is no imminent eruption indicated, Philvocs reminds the general public "that the entire Volcano Island is a Permanent Danger Zone (PDZ), and permanent settlement in the island is strictly not recommended."

What exactly does that mean? Settlement is not recommended on the island, but allowed? Or is it strictly prohibited? I guess the roughly 5,000 permanent settlers on the main crater are mulling over the same question... while charging tourists to hike the volcano.

What I read between the lines is the following: "We know you guys should get off this island for various reasons... But we don't have any means to enforce it! So would you please exit voluntarily?! Oh, and by the way, don't even think about moving your squatters to the mainland!"

The greater public good

The greater good for the greater mass. The discussion over sacrificing the individual for the “greater public good” has been a heated one during my journalism studies. The “greater good for society” was always considered an indicator to weigh in ethically "challenging" situations. When, for example, the violation of an individual’s privacy is “permissible" if the information gathered will be for the “greater public good”.

I’ve always had a problem with the equation of sacrificing the individual for the mass. Which standards are we applying when making such a decision? The journalists? The news channel's audience rating? The advertiser's agenda? The media consumer's standard?

These days I see a similar debate in a completely different context. Which individuals will safe the world from potential nuclear devastation coming from the Fukushima plant?

The standard applied to answer this question is obviously defined by the Japanese government. Last week we saw how quickly standards can change. The Japanese government increased the radiation exposure level for workers at the plant to 250 millisieverts. This is five times higher than the maximum exposure level for nuclear rescue workers recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. However, the Commission "offers no restriction in a crisis when the benefit to others clearly outweighs the rescuer's risk."

The rules changed while the game was on. I find this development very disturbing. Every worker who had signed up to work at the plant based his or her decision on conditions which now suddenly changed. I do understand that somebody has to do the dirty job. However, to work under an increased threat to health and life should be a voluntary decision in my opinion.