Study: Financial Leaders Have Strong Values Statements
Here's an overview of a study done by Booz Allen (which is pretty committed to corporate responsibility themselves) and the Aspen Institute. It states that 98% of big financial companies have integrated wording on ethical behavior or integrity into their mission statements. I don't know, but i think it's kind of a croc...it's not hard to put that into a mission statement, especially when your buddies from the fraternity of Dom Perignon-swilling CEOs are all doing perp walks at the behest of Eliot Spitzer. my point is that words don't carry any meaning unless they're put into action. i should know - i've been a marketing and "corporate communications" guy for quite some time now. see for yourself in the report.

Economist article on CSR
i love The Economist. it's insightful and (mostly) logical in it's analysis. they recently took on CSR in an article titled, "The good company - a survey of corporate responsibility". the article took a dim view of the field, and i can't say i totally disagree...that's mainly because CSR as a field doesn't try to apply it's value to what most corporate stakeholders are looking for - when you know the question will be, "what can you do for me?", you should be prepared to answer something that will help a CEO look good (and better) when she talks to shareholders. then again, however, i think the Economist just doesn't take the filed too seriously, which is why they decided to dump on CSR. some organizations are fighting back (a la howard dean, perhaps?):
- Business for Social Responsibility takes the Economist to task - good for them
- A European organization called Business Human Rights has a number of responses

Alliance Magazine - Getting Global Philanthropy Going
anyone seen Alliance Magazine? lots of thought-provoking stuff, and here's an article that makes a case for HOW to encourage global philanthropy. i'm not sure exactly what differentiates "global" philanthropy from just plain ol' philanthropy, and they don't spend much time explaining it. but it's refreshing to see the case made to change policy to encourage it. if policy - in fact, sweeping, massive policy - based on concepts like supply-side and trickle-down economics can be made into society-changing laws, there's absolutely no reason why the same thing (although on a much, much smaller scale) can't be done for philanthropy. i use those examples from economics because when politicians advocated policy that was based on them, it was always in the form of - "if we make these changes now, look at all the wonderful results we'll all have. we have no evidence to support it, but we're all really smart economists, so we know it'll happen. sort of."...well, i'll make the case that philanthropy is far more rational than economics (although the two are tied), so even wild conjecture at what "might" happen is worth trying. at least, i think it is...