“Society needs financial wealth … but it matters how you make the money,” said Rajendra Sisodia, co-founder and co-chair of Conscious Capitalism Inc., and director of the Container Store Group. “Businesses not only create, they can destroy financial wealth, as well.”
Sisodia, a marketing professor at Babson University whose published books include Conscious Capitalism and Firms of Endearment, delivered a keynote address on capitalism’s transformative power Tuesday at NACD’s Global Board Leaders’ Summit. The four-day summit convened more than 1,300 attendees—the world’s largest gathering of corporate directors—in Washington, D.C. from Sept. 17-20.
Roots of Capitalism
One of the most significant conclusions of Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith’s seminal 1776 book, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (often referred to as The Wealth of Nations), was that places rooted in freedom tend to be more prosperous. Smith’s work became a foundational text on how capitalist markets work.
“That same year—an extraordinary historic coincident in some ways—the United States was born as a country, but more importantly, an idea. [It was] the only country born out of a set of ideas,” Sisodia said. “The ideas all revolved around liberty and freedom.” Entire segments of the American population, however, were not initially given access to that freedom—including African-Americans, native populations, and women—but the nation has extended freedoms steadily over the course of its nearly 250-year history.
“What is capitalism? Political and economic freedom,” Sisodia proclaimed. It’s rooted in the idea that free markets—or economic growth driven by individuals, rather than a centrally planned economy directed by the government or a political system—help people collectively elevate their material living conditions and boost prosperity, he said.
Poverty and Capitalism
A misperception about capitalism, Sisodia said, is that it exploits people of lower income brackets, locking them into poverty. Research, though, suggests that as capitalist markets have expanded, poverty rates have declined.
Data from the World Bank show that rates of extreme poverty have decreased considerably over the past three decades. More than half of people in the developing world lived on less than $1.25 per day in 1981, compared with 21 percent living on that amount per day in 2010.
Sisodia credited that decrease to prosperity derived from capitalism, saying that the key challenge for lifting the rest of the world out of poverty is not the unequal distribution of income, but the unequal distribution of freedom.
How the World Is Changing
“What will it take for companies to flourish in the future—and not just flourish for the purpose of making a lot of money, but actually be agents of flourishing in society?” Sisodia asked. The simple answer, he continued, is that you must be in harmony with the fact that people have changed over time to become, among other things, more:
The rate of serious violent crimes in U.S. public schools has dropped significantly to about one-third of what it was in 1994. Europe, Sisodia said, had experienced 1,200 wars in 600 years, but since 1945, inter-state wars on the continent have disappeared.
Sisodia described the so-called Flynn Effect, which suggests that there has been a consistent increase in IQ scores from 1930 to the present.
Embracing of “feminine” values. “I think the great story of this century is … the end of the suppression of the feminine [side of humanity],” Sisodia said. Women now earn more college degrees than men in the United States, and as a result, the expectation is that women will rise in positions of leadership—particularly in white-collar work settings. That will naturally mean that so-called feminine values, which he described as including cooperation, empathy, and compassion, will gain more traction in society.
Tenets of Conscious Capitalism
Accepting that the world is changing, Sisodia advised that businesses embrace the four tenets of conscious capitalism. That means to act with:
A higher purpose, or more specifically, a purpose beyond generating profits. Sisodia’s website provides a further explanation by quoting University of Virginia Darden School of Business professor and Conscious Capitalism, Inc. trustee, Ed Freeman: “We need red blood cells to live (the same way a business needs profits to live), but the purpose of life is more than to make red blood cells (the same way the purpose of business is more than simply to generate profits).”
A stakeholder orientation. Conscious businesses exist not only to maximize ROI for shareholders, but also seek to enhance value for all stakeholders, leading to a more resilient business.
Conscious leadership that demonstrates care for purpose and people; and
Conscious culture built on trust, care, and transparency—not rooted in fear and stress (the risk of having a heart attack is 20% higher on Mondays for men, 15% for women, and most research blames the stress of returning to work for these statistics).
Boards: Stewards of Well-Being
Sisodia offered several considerations aimed at helping boards—and companies—become more conscious overseers:
The primary duty of the board is to the corporation—which has its own significant role in society—rather than shareholders.
Understand and shape the company’s higher purpose. Ask your board to reflect on why the company would be missed if it were to disappear tomorrow.
Consciously seek to create value for all stakeholders.
Appoint strong leaders with a capacity for love and care. It is not healthy to appoint leaders who are analytically smart but lack empathy and other forms of emotional intelligence.
Build a culture of “full-spectrum” consciousness, meaning that you are not only concerned with service to people and a higher purpose, but also efficiency, effectiveness, and success.
Ensure youth and feminine perspectives are heeded when making business decisions.
Humanity is more aware of its challenges and problems than ever before, Sisodia said in closing, and the individual and collective capacity to respond to those challenges has never been higher. “We have to create the organizational forms and philosophies and build business on [the ideals of] purpose and caring. … [A]ll of those answers that we need to our crises are out there inside somebody. We just have to figure out how to liberate that.”
One of the board‘s key responsibilities is the oversight of a company’s conduct, including the strength of its culture and the effectiveness of its ethics & compliance (E&C) program. In recent years, that responsibility has become even weightier. Recent corporate scandals, such as Volkswagen, Unaoil, and Mitsubishi Motors, have created public skepticism about business ethics, and policy makers have responded with a new emphasis on accountability for both companies and responsible individuals, including directors who are either negligent in preventing fraud or willingly participate in it. Enforcement agencies now scrutinize a company’s E&C efforts before making prosecutorial decisions by inquiring about board oversight in the company’s approach to E&C.
Organizations around the world invest tremendous resources to establish internal E&C programs and prevent corporate wrongdoing. Although E&C was historically a U.S. focus, a number of international standards have heightened the importance of E&C programs globally: the UK Bribery Act; the new International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 19600 Compliance Management System Guidelines; and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
Directors observe these developments and scratch their heads. What does an effective E&C program look like? How can we succeed with E&C without stifling our business? What is the board’s role in E&C oversight? Has any organization gotten it right?
There is good news for directors. There are exemplary organizations—representing a wide variety of sizes, sectors, and industries—that have raised the bar even higher than mere compliance with the law. These organizations have transformed their workplaces through their E&C efforts to yield stronger, more positive results. And even better, there is now a framework to help directors guide their own organizations in establishing such an E&C program.
The Framework: Principles and Practices of High-Quality E&C Programs
In May 2015, the Ethics & Compliance Initiative (ECI) convened a group of 24 thought leaders with E&C program experience, including corporate directors, former deputy attorneys general, former members of the United States Congress, business executives, senior E&C practitioners, and academics. The panel produced a new report with leading principles and practices for effective E&C program implementation: Principles and Practices of High-Quality Ethics & Compliance Programs. The report includes five key principles practiced by organizations not satisfied with “minimum” E&C efforts; these organizations are referred to in the report as high-quality programs (HQPs). The principles, which should be tailored to each company’s individual circumstances, are adapted below from the original report:
Principle 1: Ethics and compliance is central to business strategy.
E&C is both a function on the organizational chart and is considered to be an essential element within every operation.
A high standard of integrity and compliance is articulated as a business objective, and every strategic decision is evaluated for alignment with the organization’s values and standards.
An HQP ensures compliance with law and regulation, and is resourced to help leaders across the organization understand their critical role in setting and meeting the standard for integrity.
The E&C program is expected to provide an independent voice, and regularly updates the board on E&C objectives, risks, and progress.
HQP staff maintains excellence by dedicating themselves to continuous improvement in E&C through innovation, engagement with stakeholders (inside and outside the organization), and consistent consideration of employee feedback.
Principle 2: Ethics and compliance risks are identified, owned, managed, and mitigated.
While organizational values are the heart of any E&C program, risk assessments provide the foundation upon which HQPs are built.
E&C staff collaborates across the organization to support a risk assessment process that identifies, prioritizes, and mitigates risk consistently.
Compliance performance, strength or weakness of organizational culture, employee willingness or fear to report, and other key E&C areas are evaluated and reported to the board as potential risks to the organization.
Leaders at all levels assume ownership for the ongoing identification and mitigation of risks that are relevant to their areas, both inside and outside the organization.
The board is regularly briefed on emerging E&C risks and how the E&C program is monitoring and mitigating risks where necessary.
Principle 3: Leaders at all levels across the organization build and sustain a culture of integrity.
Culture is the largest influencer of business conduct, and leaders are recognized as the primary drivers of that culture.
Leaders throughout the organization are committed to, and responsible for, making ethical conduct and decision making central to the organization and its operations.
The board assumes responsibility for evaluating the performance of senior management in providing ethical leadership and setting a proper tone at the top.
HQPs equip managers and supervisors with the support needed to make those values relevant to their day-to-day operations.
Recognizing that employees at all levels make ethics-related choices every day, HQPs provide resources, guidance, and training that emphasizes to all employees the importance of acting in accordance with shared values, seeking help, and speaking up.
Principle 4: The organization encourages, protects, and values the reporting of concerns and suspected wrongdoing.
HQPs focus on establishing an environment where issues can be raised long before situations are elevated to the level of misconduct.
HQPs prepare leaders and supervisors to respond appropriately if/when employees do come forward with concerns about wrongdoing.
Managers understand the impact of their actions, and HQPs hold them accountable for contributing to a culture that does not support the reporting of concerns.
There are focused efforts to prevent and deter retaliation.
HQPs treat all those who report violations fairly and consistently, and effectively support employees who report suspected violations.
The board is regularly briefed on high-level trends in employee reporting, and management is expected to be transparent with the board when substantive “bad news” transpires.
Principle 5: The organization takes action and holds itself accountable when wrongdoing occurs.
Investigations are timely, neutral, thorough, competent, and consistent.
When a violation is confirmed, the organization responds with appropriate consequences, regardless of the violator’s position within the company.
The organization maximizes learning from every substantiated case of wrongdoing.
HQPs recognize that technology has increased reputational risk.
HQPs have well developed systems for escalating issues, with regular testing for crisis management and response.
When appropriate, HQPs disclose issues to appropriate regulatory and government authorities and work cooperatively to respond to their concerns.
The board is well informed when substantive issues arise that require organizational accountability to stakeholders.
As corporate directors know better than anyone, there is no one approach to effective ethics and compliance. Each company’s circumstances are unique; therefore, their E&C programs must vary accordingly. But there are some universals among organizations that “get it right,” particularly when it comes to implementing a proper E&C tone at the highest levels of the organization. The board has an essential role in setting the expectation that the organization will not be satisfied with upholding only the minimum standard. Understanding the principles and practices that characterize leading E&C practice will help board members engage with management to ensure that the highest standard of integrity is seamlessly aligned with the performance of the organization overall.
Patricia Harned is CEO of the Ethics & Compliance Initiative (ECI) and frequently speaks and writes about workplace ethics, corporate governance, and global integrity. Ronnie Kann is executive vice president of research and program development at ECI, having served chief ethics and compliance officers, general counsel, and chief human resource officers throughout his career. Harned and Kann both contributed as authors to the ECI reportPrinciples and Practices of High-Quality Ethics & Compliance Programs. The Ethics & Compliance Initiative (ECI) empowers its members across the globe to operate their businesses at the highest levels of integrity. ECI provides leading ethics and compliance research and best practices, networking opportunities, and certification to its membership, which represents more than 450 organizations across all industries. ECI is comprised of three nonprofit organizations: the Ethics Research Center, the Ethics & Compliance Association and the Ethics & Compliance Certification Institute. www.ethics.org
Every corporate director knows the importance of M&A in the grand scheme of enterprise. With some 40,000 significant transactions announced annually, M&A is hard to ignore. Yet there are persistent risks that directors need to understand and mitigate through insightful questions and the dialogue that ensues.
Risk: Not all bets will pay off—at least not right away. Buying a company means placing a bet on the future. Given the level of unpredictability involved, there is some chance that the merger will fail to achieve its goals and/or fail to return incremental value to shareholders. It is commonly cited that “80 percent of all mergers fail” to add value; however, this percentage is an exaggeration. Event studies that compare transactions over time present a more realistic picture by showing that incremental financial value is not assured. For example, a study conducted by Kingston Duffie, publisher of the digital magazine Braid, indicates that companies actually lost 4.8 percent of their value when they spent at least five percent of their market capitalization on M&A during the 18-month period between October 2014 and March 2016. The interactive graphic included in the study shows differentiated performance during the period—high for Stamps.com Inc., medium for Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., and low for EV Energy Partners. Your company could experience returns like any one of these.
Question for Directors:If this merger ends up havinga slightly negative result for our shareholders, what are the compelling strategic reasons to do this deal? When do we believe that deal synergies will materialize?
Risk: As a director, you could be named in a lawsuit—especially if you are voting on the sale of a company. In 2015, lawsuits were brought in 87.7 percent of completed takeovers. Although most cases settle, some do go to trial. In a trial setting there are four main standards for judging director conduct in the sale of the company, ranging from lenient to stringent:
The business judgment rule (trusting the decision as long as directors have no conflicts of interest and are reasonably well informed).
The Unocal standard (protecting anti-takeover moves only if a threat is real).
The Revlon standard (requiring an auction process once a company is in play).
Entire fairness (requiring both a fair price and a fair process).
In addition, when a company has promised its shareholders the right to have the company appraised, the court itself can impose its own valuation. In the original Dell go-private transaction, the court retroactively forced the company to pay aggrieved stockholders what the court deemed to be a missing increment to their premium.
Question for Directors:How can we find assurance that sale is in the best interest of the company and its owners, and that we have chosen an optimal price? How can we ensure that there is a litigation-ready record of our deliberations in this regard?
Risk: You could lose your board seat. According to a study by Kevin W. McLaughlin and Chinmoy Ghosh of the University of Connecticut, there is a higher rate of retention for directors from the acquiring firm (83 percent) following a merger, with the most likely survivors being individuals who serve on more than one outside board. Only about one-third of directors from the target board (34 percent of the inside directors and 29 percent of the outside directors) continue to serve after the merger.
This October, when Dell Inc. and EMC Corp. officially merge (assuming full regulatory clearance following their recent shareholder approval), many who serve on the EMC board may not be on the post-merger Dell board, including retiring EMC Chair-CEO Joe Tucci. When the merger was first announced last October, a spokesman for Elliott Management Corp. stated in a press release, “Elliott strongly supports this deal. As large stockholders, we have enjoyed a productive and collaborative dialogue with Joe Tucci and EMC’s Board and management. We are confident that this Board has worked tirelessly to evaluate all paths for the company and that today’s transaction represents the best outcome for stockholders.”
Saying goodbye to some or all of these incumbents this fall will seem to be an ironic outcome for creating value. And yet that is how it must be. Fiduciaries are not self-serving, but rather they serve on behalf of shareholders to promote the best interests of the company. As such, they need to be ready to move on when that is the best outcome for the corporation. Still, it is disruptive (and not always creatively so) to be a trusted voice of wisdom for the future one day, and mere history the next.
Question for Directors: If we sell this company and our board must merge or disband, who among us will be most useful in steering the combined company in the next chapter?
These are not easy questions. But by asking them, directors can help their companies beat the tough M&A odds.