Microsoft’s Noblest Cause

Child pornography is the Internet’s most severe social problem. In recent years it has exploded as countless illicit images are circulated online – viewed by pedophiles and passed around from predator to predator. Since 2003, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has reviewed and analyzed almost 30 million of these images. It projects that an additional nine million images will be examined in the coming year. NCMEC also acknowledges that the scope of the child porn problem is too large for law enforcement, policy makers and child protection groups to handle on their own. Enter the world’s second biggest technology company.

“We can help make a big dent,” Microsoft SVP and General Counsel Brad Smith told a group of journalists, bloggers and industry influencers at the company’s recent Citizenship Accelerator Summit. “These photos live on the Internet forever and every time they are shared or viewed, the children in them are re-victimized. It’s not enough to stop the perpetrators. The real point is getting these images off the Internet.”

In 2009, Microsoft donated a new technology to the NCMEC that has the potential to make the kind of dent Smith talks about. The technology, called PhotoDNA, was initially created by Microsoft Research and then further developed by Hany Farid, a leading digital-imaging expert and professor of computer science at Dartmouth College. Using a unique digital blueprinting technology that has a 98 percent accuracy rate, PhotoDNA finds hidden copies of the worst images of child sexual exploitation known today.

“The [Photo DNA] project is unique in that it is challenging from a technical and engineering point of view, and has the potential to significantly impact the distribution of the horrifying and troubling trafficking of child porn,” says Farid. “It is rare as an academic to work on something that has both of these properties.”

Although major content hosters such as Yahoo and Google enforce content standards as a matter of practice, the manual and human-intensive processes they rely on to remove inappropriate posts are no match for the sheer volume of child porn online today. That is why a technology like PhotoDNA, which is used by Microsoft’s own Bing search engine, is so necessary. But there are other reasons, too.

“This project is also extremely important because nobody else seems able or willing to publicly address it in a significant way,” Farid says. Indeed, PhotoDNA has received scant attention from the mainstream press, probably because it centers on a problem that no one likes to talk about. Were Microsoft purely motivated by publicity, then their safest bet would probably have been to lay low on the chid porn issue. But to the contrary, Microsoft is moving in the opposite direction. With its A Childhood for Every Child campaign, launched as a complementary effort to PhotoDNA and in conjunction with NCMEC, Microsoft urges the public to take a greater interest in this important cause.

According to Farid and others, this is a case where corporate interests effectively – and perhaps even altruistically – work for the greater good. “I am generally cautious of partnering with corporations,” says Farid. “The Microsoft team, however, has been incredibly committed to working on this problem with no obvious financial benefit.”

Whereas Microsoft’s direct financial incentives are still to be determined, the benefits of leveraging the company’s reach and innovation in order to tackle a pervasive social problem are clear enough. “Very few companies can operate at the same level as Microsoft,” Farid says.

Theoretically PhotoDNA’s underlying technology could be applied to various problems related to Internet content – resulting in social and financial upsides. With respect to child porn, Farid says that PhotoDNA is likely only the first in a series of technologies that he and Microsoft will develop to disrupt the flow of images across the Internet. “We will continually enhance PhotoDNA to contend with counter-measures employed by traffickers. We will also extend this work to analyze video.”

Whatever lies ahead, it isn’t any wonder why Farid characterizes his current collaboration with Microsoft as: “the single most important thing that I have done in my career.” Let’s hope he’s not alone – and that more leaders in the technology space will step up to help make the Internet a safer place.

 

Follow Christine Arena on Twitter.

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily

Award-Winning Author, Blogger and Corporate Strategist Christine Arena To Produce Segments For 3BL TV, 3BL Media’s New Web Video

Christine is an award-winning author, syndicated blogger and corporate strategist whose books, The High-Purpose Company (Collins, 2007) and Cause for Success (New World Library, 2004), as well as her “Case in Point” blog, separate the strategies and companies that make a positive difference from those that don’t. Christine’s work appears on websites including The Christian Science Monitor, Global Post, Fast Company, Ethical Corporation, APEsphere and others. Her purpose is to inspire stakeholder activism and a greater level of transparency amongst America’s powerful corporations.

Non-Toxic Toyland

If you’re like me you spend a fair portion of each holiday season assembling plastic toys made in China, which often arrive unassembled in several dozen pieces. I have to admit, I do so begrudgingly. Of course I appreciate that all holiday gifts are given with the best of intentions and that, in the spirit of the season, we should appreciate all we have and are given. But the truth of the matter is, however magical the color photos on any given toy box look, what rests inside the package is often another story.

Last Christmas and Chanukah my son received, among other things, the Evenflo Exersauser, Baby Einstein Color Blocks and a Fisher Price Go Diego Boat Toy. While the Exersauser took a painfully long time to put together (the instructions might as well have been written in Chinese), both the Color Blocks and Boat Toy were recalled for a violation of lead paint standards. How do I know this? Because I monitored their status on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) website. How would an average parent who does not obsess about such matters know this? Most wouldn’t, as virtually no marketer spends as much recalling a dangerous product as promoting its sale.

The CPSC’s list of 2009 toy recalls for lead and related safety violations is shockingly long, particularly considering the publicity uproar surrounding the 2007 lead-laced toy recalls, where Mattel Inc. alone took back over 1.5 million toys. Are toy industry standards improving? If they are, then it seems to be happening rather slowly. Companies including Various Toys, DND Imports and TDI International recalled products for lead paint violations in 2009, despite new consumer safety legislation banning lead, beyond minute levels, in children’s toys.

Since corporate standards sometimes fail and CPSC auditing resources are themselves limited, dangerous toys inevitably slip through the cracks. The actual number of lead-laced toys on our store shelves is surely higher than we realize. That’s a serious issue since even limited lead exposure can lead to life-long learning and behavioral disorders in children. My sense is that as long as China remains the world’s toy factory, parents get torpedoed by escalating safety and regulatory risks.

The environmental integrity of plastic toys is another matter for consideration, as parents are all but left in the dark as to the ecological and health-related impacts of the chemicals used during the manufacturing process. Many toys sold in the US are made from PVC, a poisonous plastic.

“PVC is the most toxic plastic for our health and the environment,” says the Center for Health, Environment and Justice in a recently published Fact Sheet on PVC and children. “No other plastic releases as many dangerous chemicals. These included dioxins, phthalates, vinyl chloride, ethylene dichloride, lead, cadmium, and organotins. There’s no safe way to manufacture, use or dispose of PVC products.”

There is also no sure-fire way for parents to determine which toys on Toys R’ Us shelves contain PVC and which do not, since no labeling standard exists for the industry. Material disclosure options are left up to individual companies, and most companies opt not to disclose much of anything. That begs a question: What is a concerned parent to do? On the upside, there are some wonderful online resources and product alternatives for those inclined to opt out of the black box, toxic toy system.

I recommend starting with the Green Guide, an online resource containing facts, environmental impact data, product comparisons and shopping information. Browsing through Green Guide it should become fairly clear that one need not sacrifice fun and ingenuity for peace of mind. From PVC and pthalate-free LEGOs to PlaSmart’s PlasmaCar and Radio Flyer’s Earth Wagon, the selection of toys on Green Guide is fairly broad. It includes selections from small as well as larger companies, indicating that that the trend toward eco-friendly toys is not a temporary fad, but rather a genuine shift in the global market.

Global to Green
At the Pottery Barn Kids Corte Madera store, the statement reads loud and clear: Green is here, the company is invested, and quality comes first. A huge wall of environmentally friendly products – cars, cranes, planes, trains, recycling and dump trucks made from sustainable rubberwood and painted with natural, water-based dyes; all-terrain vehicles made of 100 percent recycled eco-plastics; phthalate-free zoo animals and figurines; BPA-free Klean Kanteen® Water Bottles and other amusements – greets arriving customers and provides a wonderful selection of holiday gifts for choosy parents.

“One of Pottery Barn Kids top priorities is the health and safety of children as well as the environment,” says Christina Nicholson, Director of Sustainable Development at Williams-Sonoma Inc. “Offering simple, safe, high-quality products are founding principles of our brand, which is why we have such a variety of eco-friendly products. Our customers have asked for more unique, eco-friendly products and we are excited to be able to offer a broad assortment.”

Unlike so many other mainstream toy brands, Pottery Barn Kids sets a relatively high bar, not just for its designated eco-friendly products, but for everything it sells. Whereas toy industry standards determine 600 lead parts per million as an acceptable lead content range for products sold in the US, Pottery Barn Kids abides by an internal standard of 90 lead parts per million. The company also voluntarily tests for a variety of other compounds, including antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), and selenium (Se). Remarkably, not every toy company does that.

Product development-wise, Nicholson sees expansion opportunities. “Customers are responding very well to our eco-friendly offerings,” she says. “They appreciate the benefits these products offer their home and children. With each season we will focus on growing our eco-friendly product assortment in all categories – toys, furniture, textiles and décor.”

In addition to eco-friendly toys, Pottery Barn Kids also offers FSC-Certified furniture and organic bedding. In 2008 the company reintroduced its Anywhere Chair, which has long been been a staple in the Pottery Barn Kids assortment, with a new “hybrid” insert made from 30 percent sustainable soy-based foam. Further plans for eco-makeovers on existing products, as well as the development of new eco-product lines through partnerships with manufacturers Sprig Toys, Plan Toy and Green Toys, are reportedly in the works.

“We are parents too and we are committed to making sure everything we sell is as safe for our customer’s kids as we demand that it be for our own,” says Nicholson. “We recognize that there is much more to be done, and we are committed to growing even more eco-friendly as a company.”

Nicholson’s attitude is a signal to parents – and smart marketers, too. Some US toy companies puff up their “rigorous standards.” Others blame lax oversight on the part of the Chinese government, or on the part of US regulators for their quality-related woes. On the other hand, Pottery Barn Kids, having made a significant investment in green toys while humbly communicating environmental and safety-related ambitions for the future, gives people a better sense of assurance. They neither over-promise nor under-deliver. And that’s the key to building trust.

Note to Readers:
The original version of this story indicated that Mattel Inc. had 2009 products involved in lead-related recalls. This is inaccurate. Although the Consumer Products Safety Commission assembles its “latest toy recalls” into one list, grouping 2007, 2008 and 2009 toys together, Mattel Inc.’s lead recalls were exclusively from 2007. I apologize to Mattel and readers for the confusion.

CSR Minute Special Report: Christine Arena + Jason Saul, Mission Measurement

Christine Arena introduces Jason Saul, CEO, Mission Measurement

Nestle Waters’ Hit and Miss

Christine Arena is the author of The High-Purpose Company – The Truly Responsible (and Highly Profitable) Firms that are Changing Business Now. Like what you just read? Get your daily dose of corporate insights. Visit www.christinearena.com for more information.

 

There is a great deal at stake in the bottled water business. Perhaps Nestlé Waters North America knows this better than anybody. The company presently controls approximately 41 percent of the $11.7 billion US bottled water market. Like every other competitor in the space, it faces shrinking category sales, as well as mounting pressure from groups complaining about the toll that water corporations take on the planet.

Bottled water activists point to plastic waste, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, the environmental effects of water extraction, water privatization issues and a range of social problems generated by the industry. Could such “road blocks” deter long-term growth for corporate bottled water empires? Nestlé thinks not.

According to a 2009 document entitled “The Future of Bottled Water” authored by Nestlé CEO Kim Jeffery, the company’s broad portfolio of bottled water products, including Poland Spring, Perrier, Arrowhead, Deer Park and Zephyrhills, are well-positioned to recover from the present economic slump. “Bottled water is perfect as it is,” the company says. “[There are] limited opportunities to innovate.”

This company is clearly not of a world-changing mindset. Nestlé takes the position that the bottled water industry is unfairly portrayed as a “villain” by environmental activists and an angry public, and that “environmental facts do not support this.” Really, Nestlé?

In a press release and video web site launched last week, Nestlé attempted to express to the public the environmental virtues of bottled water. “Bottled water is actually the most efficient choice of any packaged beverage available to consumers,” the company insists. “Bottled water is a very small user of our water resources…Plastic represents less than one percent of solid waste. While water bottles can be recycled, not all Americans have access to curbside recycling…To sum it all up, bottled water is a healthful choice, can cost less than 20 cents per bottle, and has a lighter environmental impact.”

Of course, not everyone sees things through the corporation’s rose colored lens. Take the 5,400 local citizens of Salida, Colorado who recently banded together in order to fight Nestlé off and protect its local water resources and land. Or what about the residents of McCould, California, who claim their town was torn apart by Nestlé’s operations in the area? Nestlé makes no mention of such stakeholder concerns in its press release or video web site, both which set forth to “set the record straight.”

Nestlé has a public relations problem. The problem isn’t just that Americans around the country are hanging signs in their windows and entryways reading: “Stop Nestlé” or “Nest-Leave.” Nestle’s public relations problem is its sterile, detached response. The company seems to be under the impression that people will read its communications in an isolation chamber, devoid of context, clue, cultural condition, and (yes, Nestlé) fact.

Let’s start with the hard data. According to Food and Water Watch, bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. That plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil annually to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and is demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles end up in land fills. That’s why the Pacific Rim Garbage Patch, the floating vortex of waste that’s twice the size of Texas, is comprised mainly of plastic. It’s also why so many sea creatures die every day from ingesting plastic, and why plastic waste has become one of the chief concerns of our Nation’s top environmental groups.

On the cost side of things, consumers pay a huge markup on a product even though as much as 40 percent of it comes from a tap in the first place. Stakeholder communities also pay. Food and Water Watch says Nestlé has an unfortunate reputation for moving into communities, taking water for next to nothing, selling it for a hefty profit, then leaving the locals to deal with the residual environmental and social externalities, and moving on. “Next!”

None of these issues are substantively addressed in Nestlé’s press release or on its video website. Through bullet points, select interviews and clip art snippets, the company only superficially confronts the environmental impacts of bottled water. Nestlé avoids all controversial content, including details related to ongoing rifts with local communities around the country. The company’s corporate tone of voice, detached message and superficial approach to “issues outreach” demonstrates an indifference to the wider public’s ardent support for environmental reform and social justice. The pitch is all wrong.

Nestlé broke every cardinal rule in social media, stakeholder engagement and transparency with it’s one-sided, “set the record straight” public relations effort. There is no meaningful opportunity to interact with the company, no way to leave a comment. My bet is, the only folks convinced by Nestle’s “bottled water is good” message will be those who manufactured it.

Follow Christine on Twitter

CSR Minute Special Report: Christine Arena at BSR Conference

Conspiracy Theory

Either Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne is certifiably insane, or he’s a genius. Perhaps he’s a blend of both. I have to admit, the guy fascinates me.

For the past five years, Byrne has waged an unrelenting crusade against the banking practice known as naked short selling, a financial sleight of hand that floods the market with nonexistent stock. Today that war has culminated into two Internet websites, a high-profile public relations campaign, and a $3.48bn lawsuit that Byrne has filed against 12 New York brokerage firms, alleging a “massive, illegal stock market manipulation scheme.” The case is still pending.

To get a sense of both the scale and significance of Byrne’s claims, take a few paces back in time. Years prior to the 2008 financial crisis, Byrne went on TV warning people of the dangers of naked short selling and predicting that a financial catastrophe was just around the corner.

“I think there is something going on in the American marketplace that has to be stopped,” Byrne told Bloomberg in November of 2006. “When it comes to light, it’s going to be something that makes Enron look like a tea party.”

Do people take Byrne’s warnings seriously? Not so much. Some call Byrne “delusional.” Others assume that Byrne exaggerates (he recently called Mad Money host Jim Cramer a “criminal” for his role in the market meltdown). Still others find his predictions downright irritating. CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo nearly barked Byrne off her show after he said: “Our economy is a house of cards. I think we’re on the edge of a global financial meltdown,” back in 2007.

After facing so many press hounds and jeering crowds, it became clear that in order to adequately convey his message to interested investors and consumers, Byrne would have to use alternate communication methods. He took matters into his own hands.

Byrne launched two websites, Overstock.com/CEO – a mini-site on worldstock, education and Wall Street corruption, and Deep Capture – a comprehensive website describing the “capture” of our nation’s capital market exchanges, SROs, regulators and congressional oversight. Byrne is also rumored to have financed a film detailing the role of naked short selling in helping to fuel the global financial meltdown. View the video here: http://bit.ly/aHyGK

While Byrne himself may come across as a lunatic to some (his adversaries are hoping for this effect), the argument he pulls together is compelling enough to sway public interest, particularly in light of the overwhelming sense of distrust people have in today’s financial institutions. It would seem that this is Byrne’s argument to win. His conspiracy theory, laid out on the Deep Capture website, clearly demonstrates how ethics drive the economy:

The Setting:
Over the last twenty years Wall Street has come to be dominated by a group of players who first pushed the laws to their limits, then openly flouted them until they became blurred beyond the possibility of enforcement. For instance, the standards of professional journalism have been eroded by a group of reporters who have tried to appear as players, but have become pawns. Similarly, The Securities & Exchange Commission, regulator of our nation’s capital markets, has been captured by financial elites to the point that it favors Wall Street over Main Street.

The Crime:
“Naked Short Selling” and Other Insincere IOUs are a crime routinely occurring in our capital markets. Small loopholes created to provide “fault tolerance” in our nation’s stock settlement system are being exploited by Wall Street brokerages and their hedge fund clients to steal billions of dollars. One side effect of this crime is that corporate governance in America has been shattered. Another side effect is that many companies (often innovative tech and biotech companies) have been damaged or destroyed, while the Americans who invested in them were robbed, generally with no awareness on their part beyond the loss of their savings in the stock market. A third side effect of this crime is that it has created in our country’s financial system a crack so deep it could trigger a systemic collapse.

The Cover-Up:
The financial media are incapable of bringing a critical mindset to this issue because of their too-cozy relationship with Wall Street (several financial journalists actually seem to be engaged in blue-smoke-and-mirror attempts to obfuscate issues on behalf of the financial elites who turn up wherever this crime is occurring). As a result, the crack in our financial system appears to be reaching catastrophic proportions. Within “social media” (blogs, message boards, and wikis) evidence for the preceding points has been pieced together, but there is a campaign to hijack the social media discourse, organized by the same people who are profiting from the crime.

Byrne admits that to many, the preceding conspiracy theory will appear a bald and unconvincing tale. “When I first began discussing these claims, the New York Post ran a photo-shopped picture of me with a flying saucer coming out of my head,” says Byrne. “For two years the profession of financial journalism has demonstrated that in its view there are, in fact, two subjects beyond critical examination: Wall Street, and the profession of financial journalism.”

Well, Mr. Byrne, perhaps not for long. The transparency influencing all business sectors is sure to affect journalism and finance. At least, let’s hope so.

Christine Arena is the author of The High-Purpose Company – The Truly Responsible (and Highly Profitable) Firms that are Changing Business Now Like what you just read? Get your daily dose of corporate insights.

Follow Christine on Twitter

Debunking the Myth of Sustainable Brands

Let’s face it: there is no such thing as a ‘sustainable brand.’ Achieving true sustainability means constantly thinking about ways of giving back more than a company takes from the environment and society. In essence, sustainability means creating tangible value for stakeholders.

While brands are important corporate assets, the value they create for stakeholders tends to be largely intangible in nature. Brands themselves do not physically pollute, clean-up, employ, invent, invest, engineer, design, reach out, assist, collaborate and singlehandedly, they cannot save the world. Corporations and the networks, innovations and people inside them, on the other hand, can – and often do.

Irrespective of how catchy the phrase ‘sustainable brand’ is, the fundamental issue remains: either a company is sustainable, or it’s not.

Some companies approach sustainability with an unparalleled level of innovation and fearlessness. I have written about such companies numerous times in booksessays and articles, which is why I am so disappointed to see many of them continuously omitted from the surveys, articles, and highly-touted lists pulled together and promoted by the corporate social responsibility (CSR) industry – particularly those citing the “greenest,” “most ethical” or “most sustainable” citizens or brands.

In March, CRO Magazine chose Merck, Monsanto, Chevron, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Smithfield Foods and other questionable choices as “Best Corporate Citizens of 2009” (read my response here).

Last week, a survey released by Cohn & WolfeLandor Associates,  Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates; and, Esty Environmental Partners indicated that Clorox Green Works, not Seventh Generation, was the “Top Green Brand.”

Perhaps this result was to be expected given that Clorox Green Works now owns over 40 percent of the green cleaning category. But I found the result disappointing, since Seventh Generation is a 20-year old pioneer in the green cleaning market, a leader in green business practices, and is well on its way to becoming a truly sustainable company. Clorox Green Works was recently introduced and has basically relied on its marketing muscle and existing distribution infrastructure to achieve success with Green Works. Although the Green Works product line is a step in the right direction for Clorox, the company also markets highly profitable toxic products like Formula 409, Tilex, and Armor All.

As frustrating as Seventh Generation’s pass over was, the icing on last week’s faux ‘sustainable brand’ cake had to be Forbes’ lead story: “ExxonMobil: Green Company of the Year.

Exxon’s latest marketing campaign sends a message to stakeholders: “Taking on the world’s toughest energy challenges” while “preserving and protecting the environment.” Some people might buy that message, along with the company’s pitch that, despite its past and allegedly present efforts to fund global warming skeptics, a sizable investment in natural gas equals a genuine commitment to “going green.” But judging from the reader commentary posted on the Forbes website, not everyone is easily persuaded:

What are you smoking Forbes?? Besides Natural Gas?? Or did Exxon just buy a lot of advertising from you? Calling the company that denies global warming is real “green” is akin to calling the Mob a bunch of nice guys. Burning natural gas is not green, period. Cleaner, yes. But not green. Do some real investigative journalism and not just regurgitate some PR hack’s false truths!

As this reader commentary correctly points out, by calling an unsustainable company like ExxonMobil “green,” Forbes crosses the line between journalism and public relations. In the same way, by labeling other unsustainable and ethically dubious companies “Best Citizens,” “Greenest Brands,” “Sustainable Brands,” or what have you, the CSR industry is effectively perpetuating a standard of greenwash.

Greenwash is dangerous to our economy because it runs the risk of breeding consumer and investor cynicism toward genuinely sustainable companies that create environmental, social and financial value through the products they sell, the investments they make and the issues they relentlessly fight for. All of this ‘information greenwash’ being spun out of research groups, media companies and the CSR industry accumulates on the web over a period of months and years. In time, consumers and investors will be left with a data trove of incomplete and arguably inaccurate information with which to make investment and purchasing decisions. That means their money could end up in the wrong places – in companies and investment funds that, if they knew better, they would not support.

That problem is as serious as it is unjust.

Christine Arena is the author of The High-Purpose Company – The Truly Responsible (and Highly Profitable) Firms that are Changing Business Now Like what you just read? Get your daily dose of corporate insights.

Follow Christine Arena Twitter: @christinearena

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.