Journalism is challenged to listen and answer questions on the media’s disclosure of its own corporate sustainability standards.

Weak disclosure of corporate sustainability standards and initiatives by media outlets have alerted the GRI Media Sector Supplement team and staff facilitators to journalism’s poor track record in easing disclosure of corporate sustainability standards and initiatives by its own media outlets. In reporting on corporate sustainability records and report cards of other industries and sectors, its own idealism and devotion to truth, accountability and transparency has hit a blind spot when the questions are required to be answered by the journalism industry.

What is this blind spot? News organizations increasingly belong to transnational conglomerates, often resulting in a failure to support serious journalism, with conglomerates providing infotainment, which is the cheapest, safest way to grab audiences. Journalists are faced with demands, which have more to do with deep-rooted newsroom practices.

Also, journalism has been dominated by a traditional top down communication model:  “one to many” for too long.  If this example of a blind spot is to teach them anything, it is that the new participatory journalism with emails, twitter and blogs, has taken public opinion seriously.

Rather than simply being spectators of a show being played from Washington, Toronto or Westminster, it means rethinking basic journalistic conventions about covering issues, such as CSR from other perspectives, including its own. 

In his NY Times blog: The conscience of a Liberal, journalist Paul Krugman, describes Ted Kennedy as “a great man.” Yet he reminds us of the days many remember when Ted Kennedy was a figure of derision

A social conscience is the way we used to express having an attitude towards the world in which each individual acknowledged his/her own actions and the impact these made upon the world. These days, this attitude is commonly call social responsibility.

Seemingly, Ted Kennedy was born with a social conscience.. However, let's not confuse social responsibility of individuals with social justice of entire nations. I'm speaking here of individual actions, not the collective acts with a democracy of policy and government that further freedom with social justice initiatives of fairness and equality.

Much has been written about corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a new value in business. Some would argue it's always been present in the form of a leader with CSR values. Most writers though point to a WIFFM (what's in it for me) position which argues for increased profitability as motivation for businesses to "do the smart thing" by initiating CSR programs that retain customers from switching to more socially responsible brands. Here it's not a socially conscience leader but the boardroom which plays a major role in converting senior managers to a new way of communicating with staff and customers, using the profit and loss lens to deal with any resistance and avoidance to change. Having worked on CSR internal communications within an organization, I can say that this approach only works well when the strategy is championed by leadership and it engages the passions of staff, as well as reinforcing the organization's CSR values.

Doing the right thing.

What about the example that Ted Kennedy sets? He wasn't doing the "smart thing". Born into wealth and privilege, he identified not with the rich and powerful, but with the marginalized and disenfranchised. He was doing the right thing!

Any successful CSR business mandate would be wise to combine the two positions - business and profit as the "smart thing to do" alongside the moral position of the"right thing to do." This parallel approach paves the way for business to more widely engage in CSR - it harnasses employee's passions and provides a space for new leaders to emerge.

Corporate social responsibility is a new practice area for communicators. There is no clear career path laid out, as yet. Courses are beginning to be offered, but as business need increases, many are behind in the upward curve. Some of us are reaching deep inside ourselves from our personal experience as we consult and write for business on corporate social responsibility. As a former documentary maker, my experience comes from telling the story of environmental impact of nuclear power, human rights in the third world, community action for chronic health education and fundraising, and women’s rights in obtaining rights in Canada’s Charter of Rights. A colleague has created a foundation for funding African development, another is helping orphans in Kenya, and yet another is teaching CSR and traveling the world.

Affecting change in oneself or in an organization requires learning new skills. Ted Kennedy remained true to his values. For business to succeed in the CSR space requires the same ethics and transparency. This means consistency and honesty - the ethical piece. Anyone working in CSR communications must stay away from a “corp speak” to touch hearts and minds of stakeholders. Just like Ted Kennedy did.

Now that the panic is over, what’s the next stage?

As business and marketing communications writers we must steer away from catastrophic and apocalyptic thinking – the spectre of doom and gloom is counter-intuitive.

Companies that engage our services are now looking at the turnaround.  Now that the sky isn’t falling, where do we firmly plant our feet? I think it behooves us to provide counsel where it’s needed.  One of my mediation friends gave me some good advice about dealing with chaotic and uncertain situations:  Stay resolutely constructive!

When things get better it tends to be a maturing process.  Our illusions get a reality check, but our courage and determination to survive no matter what the cause, give us the stamina and resilience to change and adapt.

Look for ways your clients have strengthened their brand and positioning, how they’ve let go of what doesn’t work anymore, and become aware of strengthened belief in their product or service.  Faith isn’t about omnipresence, it’s simpler than that. No, faith is about what’s left after we go through a harrowing experience and everything has been stripped away.  It’s the key to a true identity and for that reason, it’s golden. 

BBC News reports that two rival groups with two different business models, but similar environmental agendas and sustainability philosophies have come to the table to do battle over control of the dot eco space. 

Who is going to control the lucrative green business space on the Internet?
One group, backed by Al Gore is bidding to operate the dot eco space.  The other bidders, a Canadian environmental consortium known a Big Room has also applied to Icann – the regulatory body with oversight for domain names.

Both groups follow the “give back to the planet” model, which is terrific. Given Al Gore’s claim to backing the Internet from the get go, naturally he’s advocating a percentage of profits from sales of dot eco domain names is given away.  The sale of domain names would raise funds for organizations to affect change. Meanwhile, the Big Room folks plan to generate money from the sale of dot eco domain names to fund sustainability projects that empower, globally.

What’s the difference? 
This is a productive conflict that would help define the dot eco space, commercially, ethically and socially – the triple bottom line - the three crucial aspects of sustainability.  So exactly what is the difference? The Al Gore backed group proposes a labeling system to endorse companies with green credentials.  This would provide and promote a niche marketing space for green business.   Big Room would also request green companies meet certain criteria when applying for a dot eco web address. 

Along the sustainability journey

The journey towards growing and marketing green business is proving promising.  There is ample opportunity for companies and individuals applying for a dot eco address, but they would have to understand the ground rules in order to play in that space. 

These are interesting times to be witnessing the shaping of social responsibility frameworks and the forging of valued business partnerships.  This is truly an unprecedented opportunity to align business agendas with sustainability’s triple bottom line.

The Internet’s democratic legacy is playing on.  It can only get better.  Dot eco domains will go on sale in 2009.  

So complex and challenging is the sustainability agenda that having just finished off a Social Responsibility report, I'm feeling like Joe Carter.  How's that?  At the bottom of the 9th, his was the home run that sealed victory for the Blue Jays World Series win.  He stood in the loneliest place in the world.  Hitting the home run on sustainability is almost as difficult!

Tackling the sustainability issue triggers key issues that arise from within the corporate zeitgeist.  Are we doing this because it’s the right thing to do or the smart thing to do?  Is the driver for sustainability a means to an end, i.e., profitability, or is it a moral imperative, about high minded ethical behaviour towards the planet, environment, diversity, our people?

Fortunately, “saving the world” isn’t what the best sustainability champions are pushing these days. The good ones are solving business problems by talking about the issues.  That’s where we communicators enter the conversation, because we’re trained to think in terms of messaging from a WIIFM (What’s in it – for me?) strategic perspective.

More experts agree that companies are at very different stages in declaring the benefits of sustainability and that’s where we can help in translating sustainability efforts into relevant strategies and goals.  But ensure there's a sustainability champion heading up your team (like I did) otherwise that home run may elude you.