I has visited India once because of a wedding (two friends of mine from London). It was very interesting. A old BBC journalist said to me before going to that country:"To visit India is not a trip it is an experience". And it was true. It was the opportunity to have a deep view of me, my life and the future.

Benito Castro from Seville, Spain. Happy new year for everyone.

Richard could not have put this better. Seeing it first hand makes the logic of why we should all engage with 4/5ths of society who are being left behind by globalisation, whether in the rural backwaters of emerging markets or in islands of poverty in rich cities, is a pressing challenge and vital for corporate licence to operate in less developed countries and emerging markets.

The way forward is through multi sector partnerships with many of the social entrepreneurs and pioneering project leaders like Bunker Roy and others in India and elsewhere. Full marks to Alcan who just awarded their ‘Alcan Prize’ (managed by IBLF) to Barefoot College and countless other donors and partners who seek out such outstanding community organisations.

This is not a zero sum gain as sustainability for communities can be aligned to sustainability for businesses. With sensitivity, commitment and smart management of corporate outreach it is possible to engage and make a difference.

What Richard has also illustrated is how the upcoming generation of young consumers and employees are not just open to this but expect it of companies in a world where trust, credibility and corporate respect are thin on the ground.

The challenge for visionary business leaders with an eye to sustainability is to develop business models that engage and align to the real challenges of the markets where they operate.

Robert Davies
CEO, International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF)

Knowing you as I do, Richard, it is no surprise to me that you have chosen to spend the holidays with Roy Bunker. I've been following the work of Roy Bunker since he was awarded a $615,000 Skoll Foundation 2005 Social Entrepreneurship Award.

For those who don't know about Jeffrey Skoll, he was the first employee and first president of eBay. His foundation is devoted to investing in social entreprenurs, primarily through his annual awards.

For information on the 2006 Skoll Foundation Social Entrepreneurship Awards, visit http://www.skollfoundation.org/grantees/2006.asp. These are organizations that are really making a difference in ways that are adventuresome and effective. They serve as a reminder that there are many creative ways that each of us can have a positive impact on the world.

I enjoy these travel pieces - refreshing to hear about the world out there, beyond New York, beyond our field of vision. "Giving back" seems to be more of a priority as you get older (and/or wiser) and you have more to give that is of real value. The agency public relations business in New York is stressful, demanding and can be all encompassing. We can give back but only if our employer supports the effort and we are not penalized for diminishing billable time. How do you inculcate "giving back" into culture of an agency? Can you reward employees for their non-profit work?

We donate 1% of the firm’s expected profit in free work for non profits

We also ask each of our senior people to go on boards of non profits and we match personal donations to those charities.

This is really important way for the industry to give back.

Melinda, I remember your work at least a decade ago in South Central LA. Believe me that the Bunker Roy Barefoot College was just as inspiring to me.

Richard, as a volunteer for a non-profit organization, Asha for Education (http://www.ashanet.org/), that supports the education for children in India, I really appreciated your posting.
It is nice to learn that Edelman not only contributes to non-profit organizations, but also supports education related causes in India.
As a PR professional myself, I would like to do more to promote NGOs like Asha within the Indian community here in the U.S. to increase awareness and raise funds. I would love to get your advice on how this can be accomplished more effectively.
I wish you all the best with your efforts!

Richard, as a journalist reporting on POSITIVE issues rarely highlighted by the mainstream media and promoting the many enterprises that are working for a sustainable future, I strongly think that companies have the unique chance of making a difference bu supporting and LEARNING from social entrepreneures as Mr Roy. Thank you for sharing your experience, I appreciated your comment very much, specially your call for companies to support this kind of changemaking actions when they do bussiness overseas. I noticed you travelled with your family and, as a mother of four, I can imagine how touching that experience have been for you all. Isn´t this EDUCATION?! EXPERIENCE IT, LIVE IT, FEEL INSIDE OTHER PEOPLE SKIN and a new responsible and sustainable economy have a strong chance for us all. I recommend Jeffrey Sach´s book "The end of poverty". I wish you the best from Argentina.

Thanks for reading my blog. As an American, I feel so strongly that we must travel outside of home country to appreciate the cultures of others. That is the gift of this vacation to my children.

Find an interesting human angle, like the story of Mr. Bunker Roy. Demonstrate the effectiveness of the non profit through substantial research. Work for a business connection, from a board member. These help to sell a story.

Mr Edelman:

Kindly address the matter of the Acer Ferrari laptops that were sent out to bloggers and then recalled. Do you believe this is ethical, or is it another Wal-Mart-style mistake?

Steve Safran
Managing Editor
LostRemote.com

It was an incredibly exciting evening for me. My family was profoundly impressed by the children and their commitment to learning.

"Each of us in PR can commit to giving something back to society in 2007"

Good idea, we could all give away laptops loaded with Vista.

Steve—got this comment late on Friday. I also saw your post on this subject over the weekend. You and I can agree to disagree. By the way, I post every comment to my blog unless it contains obscenities or is spam.

Some of the NGO feedback has to be taken with a pinch--or a few spoonfulls--of salt. Why isn't contaminated water a public health issue than just a Coke or Pepsi issue? Why are companies expected to solve some fundamental problems, including weak laws and non-enforcement of such laws, while the government is not held accountable for making sure the macro issues are being handled? Are we a nation that will be governed by free markets and freedom of choice or a nation where populist calls for boycotts and bans often circumvent rule of law? Sure companies have a long way to go in terms of social responsibility but we ought to hold the mirror up to ourselves often rather than simply go after the soft targets that many of these brands represent.

Hi, I am from India and the issue is much simpler. It's really cause and effect, nothing about anti-business feelings as a prejudice. Enforcement is weak in India and businesses routinely get away with a lot of things they wouldn't be able to in a mature regulatory environment, because they can. So the scepticism is healthy.

There is widespread adulteration and India and scant attention to quality, health and environmental issues. It is sometimes speculated that upto 20% of medicine is adulaterated. Milk adulteration is rampant because of bad packaging to save costs and this is just scratching the surface. Thousands of chemicals banned in the west, food colourings for instance, continue to be widely used in India.

Coke and Pepsi have been brazenly polluting the ground water in Kerela, and bottling soft drinks with high levels of pesticide content. That's the cause, the timely exposure of this criminal behavior by an NGO and the public outcry is the effect. They need to behave like responsible businesses rather than merceneries. the double standards inherent in their behavior, they would never try this in the west and get off so lightly as they have. Thats all.

“I work very closely with GE Healthcare in India, so I was immediately struck by Ms. Joseph’s comment that GE has sold its ultrasound equipment to unscrupulous radiologists. It highlights the impact misinformed opinion can have.

Misuse, especially of technology is unfortunate and a matter of concern. But we should not lose perspective.

Do we (should we?) blame GM or Toyota or Maruti or TATA Motors for the number of road accidents in India? Do we attribute the increasing number of deaths due to rash driving in India to the sales force of these car manufacturers? Who do we expect to police misuse in the case of cars? The car manufacturers or the law enforcers?

Why should the yardstick be different for other technology?

It is especially unfair to a life-saving technology like ultrasound, which plays an essential role in cardiology, radiology (liver, gall bladder, pancreas, kidney, etc), surgical and obstetrics & gynaecological applications. It is unfair to patients who benefit from the use of this technology, unfair to doctors who use the equipment for the right purposes. It is also unfair to a manufacturer like GE who makes every effort to ensure strict compliance with a law (the Pre-Natal Diagnostics Techniques Act, or PNDT Act) that is very stringent.

I know that GE fully and unequivocally supports Indian public opinion and the Government’s efforts to strengthen protection against sex determination and misuse of diagnostic equipment through the PNDT Act. In fact, even before the amendment to the PNDT Act came into effect, Wipro GE Healthcare had taken pro-active measures including cautioning customers through terms and conditions of sale, product manuals and stickers on the equipment.

To ensure strict compliance with its own rigorous policy as well as the PNDT Act, the company has several steps and processes:

1) It is mandatory for a diagnostic centre to have a Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) certificate for an order to be processed by Wipro GE Healthcare. For example, in spite of a Kerala court providing an interim order to some Kerala health institutions allowing them to procure equipment without the PNDT certification, GE has refused to supply them the equipment till they have the certification.

2) Purchasers of GE ultrasound products in India are advised in GE sales documentation that Indian law prohibits the use of medical devices to identify the gender of a foetus.

3) GE employees are required to terminate all sales discussions with customers when there is reason to believe a potential customer is not committed to complying with its policy and the law in India

4) Compliance Training is conducted for internal sales teams as well as dealers and channel partners

5) A PNDT Audit is held in GE's ultrasound department in every quarter for direct sales, dealer sales and refurbished machines.

6) Every quarter, the list of ultrasound equipment sold by Wipro GE Healthcare and installed in each state is sent to the appropriate State Authorities and the Central Authority as required by the PNDT Act

7) GE sales and service teams receive on-going training to ensure their commitment and compliance with this policy

The facts show that GE's sales in the North of India where gender discrimination is most rampant, are actually down following the PNDT Act because of strict compliance with the law.

When a company is firmly committed to making every possible effort for the responsible, legal and safe use of its equipment in India, it deserves to be highlighted as an example of what good compliance can achieve.

Raju

I learned that the traditional view of Indian businessmen in the villages is as money lender and exploiter. I got this from the Bunker Roy puppet show which tours around Rajastan. This needs to be turned around.

I have posted my comments based on work in the field & articles that have emerged from 2 decades of work on the issue by Dr.Sabu George who was one of the petitioners in the case in the Supreme Court. Kindly post the article as it responds to Mr.Talwars comments & I reiterate that my observations are based on facts & not misinformed. In fact we are presently engaged with UNICEF in a partnership on the issue of preventing foeticide. Amita Joseph

Richard, thanks for an insightful year of blog posts. Happy Holidays and greetings from a rainy Sacramento.

Richard,

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments here, and I think we, the collective profession not just you and I, are partly to blame.

Firstly, we need only look at what many people consider the natural emnity between PR's and journalists as a catalyst for the "Bad News Times". While we all endevour to produce good news for our clients, the sceptecism of journalists ultimately skews this good news into something else, if only an underlying cynacism. This doesn't need to be the case, however. By fostering good working and personal relationships with the media we can work, not only to turn around the negative news scenario, but also improve the validity of our messages and the avenues that we can pursue.

I also think that we need to actively apply this principle to the blogging community in order to improve our standing with the online community in general. The issue here is the same as with journalists, our profession does not inspire trust from the masses. However, there is no reason why we cannot participate in the "genuine" conversations that exist within blogs. All we need do is declare ourselves as PR's before providing the disclaimer that the information we're disseminating is company sponsored, but no less relevant than Joe Blogs heavily emotive testimony. Our Publicity, in the information dissemination sense, may even promt a more "genuine" discussion than previously possible.

However, old or new media, we cannot as a profession afford to stand aside from these media. We have already lost control of the conversation, we need now to regain an active and credible part in its future.

Cameron Beresford
Edelman, Sydney.

Richard, your post highlights further the great paradox for big media and large companies that rely on big media as the dominant communications platform. Much like the younger generation who often has difficulty communicating in real world settings using clear sentences, despite their outrageous salary demands, big media and large companies don't know how to initiate and participate in "horizontal conversations"—it might as well be Mandarin to many corporate marketing heads and executives.

I am excited about the future because you can begin to see companies swirling around more intimate ways to communicate. The problem is that large enterprise MUST contend with shareholders and Boards of Directors that are singularly focused, so it becomes difficult in spite what they say in the annual reports.

The real adaptation will occur as younger board members (under 50) start to dominate in all industries. This is when a real floodgate of horizontal conversation will take place--and it will be global and it will be real. We're coming with the solution in February 2007.

You make an interesting point there, Richard, when you say, "we need to be proud of our profession." This is something I strive to drive among youngsters at the agency I work for in India.

I noted with interest you are scheduled to visit India this week and that's the reason why I write this. I am also sure you wont be hearing this for the first time. One of the major problems that plague the profession in India is a clear lack of respect amongst media for PR professionals and I frequently hear from colleagues in the industry how thankless this profession is. We still have a long way to go before media can appreciate PR professionals for the role they play and the PR folk, including some self proclaimed media specialists stop acting subserviant to the media, ruining it for everybody in the process. In India, the industry itself could do with a little PR. And I hope stalwarts like you do your bit in educating the vital links that form the PR chain on the value we add to organisations and media alike.

I hope your stay here is pleasant. Happy holidays!

I would like to respond to Mr. Sachin Talwar’s remarks defending GE in Richard Edelman’s blog. For last 21 years been concerned with protecting girl child rights in India. In the first decade I worked on growth of pre-school children and female infanticide in villages in TamilNadu. I left the villages and started working on sex selection when ultrasound machines started appearing in urban TamilNadu in 1995. I was among the 3 petitioners in the Indian Supreme Court (2000-2003) and also successfully lobbied for amendments in the Indian Parliament to the PNDT Act which forbid the sale of ultrasound machines to non-registered Clinics (December 2002). I emphasise this as a short message sent on Jan. 3 morning was not posted in the blog & having put Mr.Talwars comments in full I hope you will post my comments.
The trivialization of the issue of female foeticide which is an outcome of widespread access to foetal sexing by increasing number of ultrasound machines by comparing its abuse to auto car companies is a matter of grave concern. If comparisons have to be made then we would compare ultrasound machines to WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) particularly given the ongoing genocide of girls eliminated before birth.
Part A talks about the enormity of the issue of female foeticide. The enormity and impact has major bearing on culpability. Part B considers the commitment made by the legendary Jack Welch before GE started the joint venture in India with WIPRO to manufacture ultrasound machines. Part C describes the outcomes of GE sales in India based on documents submitted by their partner WIPRO to the Honourable Indian Supreme Court in 2001-2 at the time of our litigation against Government of India and all State Governments for non-implementation of PNDT. Therefore, my submission is not misinformed opinion but based on facts. Other responses are included in Part D.
PART A
Data from different sources are consistent about the estimates of missing girls. The Census which is conducted every ten years counts the numbers of surviving boys and girls up to the village/ward level. From Census 2001 also we also get a direct estimate of sex ratio at birth (SRB) from the number of births occurred in the last year (2000 to 2001, based on 19.2 million live births). This was 906 girls per 1000 boys, which implies 5% of girls were eliminated before birth in the year preceding the Census. The latest estimate of SRB is from the Sample Registration System (SRS) for the years 2002-2004. SRS covers over 1.3 million households and estimates are pooled for three years to get valid numbers at the State level. SRB is 882 girls per thousand boys for India. Thus in India we have nearly 930,000 missing girls every year (at least 2500 girls per day!). Note in USA 2,000,000 girls are born every year! Therefore we are dealing with a genocide unprecedented in the history of the country. The foetal stage has become the riskiest time in a woman’s life cycle and in areas like Delhi where foetal sexing by ultrasound is extensive, a girl is likely to be eliminated several times in mother’s womb than die of all causes in the first year of life! And each missing girl is an outcome of at least two foetal sexing. Millions of illegal scans have been done by misuse of ultrasound. Estimates are that about 8 million illegal scans were done using ultrasound since the PNDT law was enacted in 1994 till 2001. And another two million per year from 2002 onwards! So the birth data is evidence of what a gold mine foetal sexing has been for the manufacturers. We do not deny that ultrasound has several uses but nobody can deny that illegal foetal sexing had been a significant use in India. In fact since there are millions of abortions of female fetuses, sex selective abortion is becoming a increasing part of induced abortions. And since a lot of these abortions are done illegally, maternal mortality due to unsafe abortions is also increasing. Thus sadly, ultrasound has become a weapon of mass destruction of Indian women (before and after birth)! So much for life saving technology!!
PART B
GE announced in 1993 that it will manufacture ultrasound in India with WIPRO. Jack Welch, the legendary CEO of GE assured the American business media that GE was not coming to India to exploit the market for sons. Note this apprehension was because both in South Korea and China where GE had a major share of the ultrasound market, there was significant abuse of ultrasound for foetal sexing.
In India before 1993, GE hardly had a presence in the ultrasound market. By 1996 the sales of the domestically produced GE machines started picking up and by late 90s GE-WIPRO captured the largest market share. GE-Finance gave cheap credit while GE-WIPRO sold the machine with vigorous marketing often not applying due diligence It is important to recognize that in America, FDA regulations mandate that medical devices like ultrasound be sold to only MDs. While in India, the company had different standards! The portability of some of the GE ultrasound models also enabled it to be easily taken around in the Doctors’s car for promoting foetal sexing! (in the earlier era the bulky ultrasound was carted to rural areas and peripheral towns of North West India in Ambulances).
PART C
The Supreme Court in December 2001 directed that the companies only sell machines to registered Clinics (in our Public interest litigation). The data of sales submitted to the Court by GE’s partner WIPRO revealed that, generally, wherever there was large number of machines, in those areas child sex ratios were low (against girls)! This was of course no coincidence but a reflection of what the machines were used for. Similar patterns were also revealed when Government of India undertook survey of machines two years ago.
We also need to understand the process of the implementation of the PNDT Act which was enacted by the Parliament in 1994. The Rules were framed only in January 1996 but these exempted almost 95% of the ultrasound machines. Only those machines which were used for invasive tests like amniocentesis and CVB were brought under the purview of the Act. The Act therefore remained in the law books till we challenged the implementation in the Supeme Court (Feb. 2000). After many hearings and dialogues with the Government in the Court, the first major judgment was pronounced in May 4, 2001. At this time barely 600 clinics were registered and 500 of the 600 was in TamilNadu (thanks to our efforts in the TamilNadu Assembly in May 2000). Today over 30,000 Clinics are registered. Note therefore, the claims of Mr. Talwar about GE’s compliance to the Law is difficult to accept. “It is also unfair to a manufacturer like GE who makes every effort to ensure strict compliance with a law (the Pre-Natal Diagnostics Techniques Act, or PNDT Act) that is very stringent”. The claim that “In fact, even before the amendment to the PNDT Act came into effect, Wipro GE Healthcare had taken pro-active measures including cautioning customers through terms and conditions of sale, product manuals and stickers on the equipment” does not have substantial merit given the terrible outcomes & impacts. Therefore, if GE indeed was true to Jack Welch’s commitment not to use ultrasound for sex determination it would have made proactive efforts to ensure that the PNDT law was implemented right from September 1994 when it was enacted.
The reality about the proliferation of ultrasound machines also needs to be highlighted. Ultrasound machines were used in India right from the early eighties but the numbers were fewer. The Government of India started publishing records of sales only from 1988 when barely a few hundred were being sold. The numbers increased 33 times between 1988 and 2003. However, it was after the economic liberalisation of the early 1990s that the annual production increased strikingly from a few hundreds to thousands, starting from 1994 (1314 during 1988–91, 5651 during 1992–95, 11290 during 1996–99, and 19581 during 2000–03). The ultrasound boom in India has a lot to do with GE’s entry and aggressive marketing. Thus India may have had a law in 1994 but the proliferation of machines from mid nineties coupled with the indifference of manufacturers to ethics has caused the genocide of ‘millions of missing girls’. How many more millions of girls will have to disappear from India before companies such as GE will recognize their responsibility? A copy of the paper describing GE’s practices was published in the medical journal Reproductive Health Matters, London in 2002 and a copy was also given to the CEO of GE last year by Amita Joseph. GE USA had chosen to not to respond.
PART-D
Regarding the assertion by Mr. Talwar that “The facts show that GE's sales in the North of India where gender discrimination is most rampant, are actually down following the PNDT Act because of strict compliance with the law” if backed with evidence is indeed welcome sign. Today new competitors are entering into the Indian market. Aloka’s decision to manufacture ultrasound in Chennai is indeed a great concern. Aloka is the largest dedicated ultrasound company in the world with substantial market shares in China and Japan. MNCs must be sensitive to public opinion, must practice due diligence & refrain from double standards. Korean Medison has emerged in the last few years in the Indian sub-continent. Home grown Chinese company, Mindray Medical has become aggressive in Europe after listing in New York Stock Exchange last year. Civil Society organizations & the media will be now regulating the impact of (potential) new entrants into the Indian market strengthened by the law & the courts. We look forward to GE’s assistance to ensure that the new market entrants respect ethics and law.
The Kerala high court interim order or a judgement is subservient to the judgement of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court is supreme as far as interpretation of the law is concerned. Therefore, the caution of sales in Kerala was necessitated by law & in fact if GE did not comply with the Supreme Court orders after its partners counsel WIPRO submitted affidavits, it would amount to grave contempt of the Court.

Sabu M. George, MA(Johns Hopkins), PhD(Cornell)
Consultant, Business & Community Foundation, New Delhi.