« July 2010 | Main | September 2010 »
August 26, 2010
Voodoo Academia
Monday’s Wall Street Journal featured an article titled “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility,” by Professor Aneel Karnani of the University of Michigan’s Business School. The take-the-cake lines in Karnani’s thesis: ”a focus on social responsibility will delay or discourage more-effective measures to enhance social welfare in those cases where profits and the public good are at odds,” and “in most cases, doing what’s best for society means sacrificing profits.” My greatest fear is that Luddite PR executives will grab this feature story and head into the corner office to tell the CEO that he/she should stand fast against the siren song of the stakeholder society, to continue to be an exclusive devotee of the magic power of markets.
I spoke this morning with three experts to get their views of the story: Matthew Bishop, author of “The Road from Ruin” and “Philanthrocapitalism,” also USA editor of the Economist; Rakesh Khurana, professor at Harvard Business School; and Steve Fludder, GE’s VP of Ecomagination. Here are their views.
Bishop told me that Karnani’s characterization of the world of business falling into two states, either perfectly aligned or not aligned with public interest, is utter fantasy. As he wrote in his blog post, “Markets and their relation to public interests are constantly evolving – and the actions of companies play a crucial role in whether they evolve in a direction that serves the public interest.” He told me that the best people will want to work for a company they believe in. “How can you win the battle for talent in a world where workers are increasingly choosy about the ethics and mission of the firm they work for?” He argues passionately that smart companies are focused on long term shareholder value, not short term earnings. “The current economic crisis was caused not least by endemic short-termism in capitalism.” He jokes at the end of his blog post, “Anything but capitalism red in tooth and claw is a perversion of the true faith.”
Khurana noted that the Karnani model “has no application to the rest of the world, beyond a mile square radius from the University of Chicago campus that housed Milton Friedman. In Europe or in China or in India, a company would not have the license to operate this way.” He added that there “is a group of persistent rationalizers who change the facts instead of changing their theory, offering old wine not even in new bottles.” He insisted that companies change tastes and evolve markets, “because vanguard firms capture the lead in business.” He sent me a brilliant white paper that he co-authored with Professor Rosabeth Kanter, titled “Advanced Leadership Note: An Institutional Perspective and Framework for Managing and Leading.” In this paper, the professors contend, “In addition to economic performance as determined by economic outcomes, organizational decisions are also judged by the criteria of legitimacy…A legitimate organization is one that is perceived as pursuing social acceptable goals in a socially acceptable manner….in some cases the social logic of values is linked to an economic logic of resource maximization, but in other cases these can be in tension, which means that effective societal outcomes cannot be left to the invisible hand of unregulated or unguided markets.”
Fludder (disclosure: a client) pointed out that GE is in the business to make money, “not for altruism.” He added, “We see this evolution as a market opportunity, but one that also serves society. These tough environmental challenges are addressable through technologies we can implement.” He suggested that companies attempt to shape the future, “leading by example….with innovative products….reinventing the category.” But Fludder provided great advice, “Try to influence the regulatory environment. Show the government through demonstration projects that you can remediate a problem.”
We are at a very important moment in the relationship between business and society. The catastrophic economic events of September 2008 undermined the confidence in the private sector’s ability to self-regulate. Bankruptcies of centerpiece companies in the global economy, such as GM, plus reputation issues for leaders in finance (Goldman Sachs), energy (BP) and transport (Toyota) have called into question the values of corporate leaders. In the race for public credibility, it is fortunate for business that its prime regulator, government, is not seen as a worthy replacement as the leader in the dance.
The role of the PR person is to advocate for a stakeholder approach, to engage with non-traditional partners (such as NGOs) and to enable solutions that serve private and public interests. Then the PR person should communicate differently by engaging employees first, being completely transparent on the timeline, reporting progress on corporate commitments, and not just communicating to consumers about responsibility and sustainability – but engaging with them to join the journey.
Here are four examples of client work:
GE spent considerable time engaging business unit leaders and initiating a new conversation internally among employees on Ecomagination before it went public. GE employees are now at the forefront of driving its commitment to address the world’s environmental challenges.
Clorox Brita’s FilterForGood campaign inspires consumers – and communities – to take a personal pledge and even engage in (planet) healthy competition with others to reduce their bottled-water use, as well as informs them about other environmentally-friendly decisions that each can personally make.
Unilever’s Omo Detergent adopted the “Dirt is Good” campaign - aligning with the brand’s business proposition by asserting that “every child has the right” to be a child and get dirty. After fielding new academic research highlighting the importance of outside play for the physical and social development of children and engaging parents, governments and NGOs to take action, the campaign triggered real social change – Vietnamese schools agree to assess national provisions for school recess while the brand commits to build 100 playgrounds over three years.
The Pepsi Refresh Project, partnering with NGOs and experts, is directly crowdsourcing ideas from consumers to foster innovation in social good – awarding more than $20 million this year to fund local community initiatives and ideas that refresh the world.
These companies demonstrate that contrary to Karnani’s assertion, the decision isn’t whether to run an effective, “smart” business or a socially responsible, engaged one. Performance with purpose (a term used by PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi) is not an either/or proposition.
Posted by Edelman at 2:22 PM |
Comments
Richard:
Yes, we are witnessing a change in how individuals and organizations interact.
This is the latest of three editorial articles attempting to argue against the concept of corporate social responsibility. All of them failed to recognize how a connected society is changing the roles of institutions - companies, non-profits, and government.
How a company makes it profit matters more as we become even more connected. Corporations can no longer act like a man shaving with a face full of Novocain oblivious of the damage he's causing with his actions and decisions.
This greater intimacy and immediacy changes how shareholder value is created AND destroyed. My piece in the Chronicle of Philanthropy yesterday explored this line of thinking in greater detail. If you'd like, you can read it here:
http://philanthropy.com/blogPost/Corporate-Responsibility/26469/
Posted by: Scott Henderson at August 26, 2010 7:43 PM
Thanks for this insightful post. Love that you point out that, when it comes to social responsibility, it's not an either or proposition. I'm sharing this with my team.
Posted by: Becky Frost at August 27, 2010 1:57 PM
Posted by: Paul Seaman at August 27, 2010 4:14 PM
Excellent column. Wish I'd written it myself! Thanks for bringing Prof. Khurana et al into this conversation.
Personally, I think Khurana is exactly right to pinpoint the twin sources of misinformation as being the tendency toward dogmatism (U of C Friedman, with a dash of Ayn Rand) and a deplorable proclivity for the short-term. Amen, and well said.
The relationship between government, society and business is, as Bishop says so well, constantly evolving. It is also far more nuanced than Karnani and his ilk allow for.
We need a little more sociological observation and a little less economic theory in our business schools these days.
Thanks for pinpointing this issue so sharply.
Charles H. Green
Trusted Advisor Associates
Posted by: Charles H. Green at August 30, 2010 1:58 PM
Seems like this old debate never goes away. I think the problem with the argument is that those who come at it from the perspective of "corporations maximize social good by maximizing profit" always assume that CSR strategies are not aligned with the company's strategy and therefore not profit enhancing or profit preserving.
I agree that CSR programs implemented as boardroom vanity (shareholder dollars contributed to the CEO's favorite cause) are not appropriate or smart. But companies that can align their CSR programs with their core business strategy, and hence make them profit enhancing, can generate returns significantly better than the money they shovel into advertising or other sales efforts.
The real problem is that the majority of companies are indeed practicing "dumb CSR" and not aligning their philanthropy or other social engagement strategies with their profit making activities. I think this comes from the old thinking that if your philanthropic activities are at all tainted by your business interests then they are somehow sullied. But that notion is ridiculous: a company that aligns its philanthropic expenditures with its profit interest is no different than a wealthy individual who aligns his/her contributions with their social and personal interests.
Posted by: Darryl Siry at August 30, 2010 8:30 PM
While it may be difficult for companies to pick the right CSR project, it's an investment I think most should make. They should see it as a long-term investment in their success. That said, we need more research on the impact these programmes have on a company's bottom-line. We may just be assuming that customers, care, when they really don't.
Posted by: Soyini at August 31, 2010 3:07 AM
Richard,
Your excellent post flashed me back to a November 2009 LIVE from the NYPL event Capitalism and the Future. The program included, among others, Indra Nooyi, Chair and CEO of Pepsico. The link to a Multimedia and printed transcript is: http://www.nypl.org/audiovideo/live-nypl-aspen-institute-present-capitalism-and-future.
The text which follows references “performance with purpose” during an interaction between Walter Isaacson, President of the Aspen Institute and Indra Nooyi.
WALTER ISAACSON: Well, let’s talk about externalities—they can be anything from carbon to obesity to foreign oil causing wars or whatever it may be. How should capitalism price those externalities that the marketplace doesn’t capture, such as pollution and whatever?
INDRA NOOYI: I don’t know, I can’t speak about capitalism in general, Walter, but what I can tell you from our perspective. We articulated a goal for our company which said we as a company want to deliver performance with purpose, and the performance is commercially we want to be known as a great company, but we said we had to do our job ethically, too, which meant that in anything we do, we didn’t want to create costs to society, so we wanted to transform the portfolio because society has changed, and to keep up with the changes in society, we’ve committed to making massive changes in our portfolio. And just to give you an idea, in the United States alone, where servings of beverages has grown about five percent, the calories per serving has come down seven percent, so net there’s a massive reduction in the calories that we’re putting out in beverages, so we’ve committed to transform the beverages massively. We’ve committed on the environmental plank to have net zero plants, to make sure that we reduce water usage massively across the world, go to washing of our bottles that are not done with water but are done with eBeam. We are deploying green technologies so that we don’t add costs to any of the communities or societies in which we operate in and we want to be viewed as one of the greatest employers in the world of capitalism. So I look at us and say if all companies, and again, I’m not here to make a commercial on PepsiCo, but that’s the company I know best, but I just look at our company and say if all companies practiced performance with purpose and wanted to be viewed as a responsible corporation, why isn’t capitalism great, and how can we get more companies to behave that way?
WALTER ISAACSON: But do you do that because it gives your shareholders a better return on investment, or do you do it because it’s the correct moral thing to do and you would do it even if it reduced your return on investment?
INDRA NOOYI: Look, I think the definition of shareholders is an ancient definition. The new definition is the multiple stakeholders, because you know, there’s been a definition which said, just earn the biggest bang for the buck and don’t worry about the debris you leave behind. That’s what’s got us into this mess and I think if you start taking a holistic view and saying, “You can’t make a profit at the expense of multiple communities,” because it’s all going to come back to haunt you. If society gets worse, if the environment is terrible, your taxes are going to go up because somebody’s got to clean up that mess, and then it’s going to come back to you in terms of higher health care costs or higher corporate tax or individual tax rates, so I think all companies who have major roles to play in society should practice performance with purpose. And I don’t use that as our cliché, but it’s much more a set of words that every company should be held accountable for.
Posted by: Hugh Campbell at August 31, 2010 9:56 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackAugust 20, 2010
Vacation Reveries
I have been out of the office for the past two weeks. The break was overdue—I was getting groggy in the afternoon, relying on a Diet Pepsi for energy to get through the day. I can always tell when it is time to go back to work. My right arm and back ache from too much tennis and I bounce out of bed at 7 am. Here are a few observations from my time off:
1) China Has a Superior Political System for Economic Growth—So said George Soros, bemoaning the dysfunction of the US Government, at a recent dinner in the Hamptons.
2) Raising Money for Charities Is Really Tough—I had a fundraiser for the Public Theater’s Shakespeare in the Park program. It was like pulling teeth to get contributions.
3) Getting Money for Politicians is Impossible—I tried to interest friends in a fundraiser for a local Congressman. Voters are irritated about the lousy economy, concerned about impending tax increases, revile the health care bill as costly at a time of budget stress and think that government is too involved in the activities of business.
4) Rise of Private Label Products—Shopping at the local grocery store, it is impossible to overlook the increasing space taken up by store brands, especially in lower interest categories such as garbage bags.
5) Idealism of the Next Generation—Having seen a dozen Bowdoin volleyball players plus another dozen college students who are friends of my children, I see much less interest in a career on Wall Street and more desire to give back through Teach for America or other charitable options.
6) The Mosque at Ground Zero—I watched an advertisement last night for a gubernatorial candidate whom I have supported for years. It turned my stomach to see images of 9-11, then a clip of the candidate saying that the new mosque cannot be placed on hallowed ground. Politics is one thing, integrity is another. For the record, there are two other mosques four blocks and 12 blocks away from Ground Zero.
7) Spending Money Does Not Guarantee Success—My friend, Ned Lamont, ran in the Democratic primary for Governor. He spent a boat load, actually $9.5 million, mostly on TV ads. He opted not to debate his opponent because he was ahead in the polls by as much as 20 points; his advisors said he should not take the chance of a mistake. The newspapers then turned against him as ducking the discussion. Only 20% of the registered voters actually came to the polls, mostly union members or party regulars. He lost by 18 points. The lesson is to make your own decisions, as a client or a candidate, weighing the advice of experts.
8) Best Books and Movies—Books read on vacation include Constantine’s Sword on the relationship between Jews and the Catholic Church, Chris Hibbert’s The Borgias, David Fischer’s Champlain’s Dream about the father of New France in Canada. I started but gave up on The Brothers Karamazov. Best movies include Avatar, My Cousin Vinny, Ben Hur and the Alamo (directed by and starring John Wayne).
Posted by Edelman at 1:47 PM |
Comments
Mr. Edelman,
I stumbled upon your blog by chance. I think it's fantastic that you discuss your thoughts and ideas like this. I think more CEOs should do the same. I couldn't help but laugh at the bit about "The Brothers Karamazov" -- it's such a daunting work (though well worth the effort, I'm told). I'm about to embark on a Henry James excursion and feel a similar trepidation.
-Steve
Posted by: Steve Bidwell at August 22, 2010 8:45 PM
I think your observation about private label products is true and will take hold even more and more, even into "higher interest" categories, in spite of the inevitable economic recovery. Consumers are very savvy these days, and "good enough" will rule in more and more categories. The upside for PR is the differentiation story telling can be done much more effectively and inexpensively via media relations than advertising.
Posted by: Steve Shannon at August 23, 2010 1:29 PM
I find it ironic that so many people seem to think government is too involved in business activities, when the evidence seems to illustrate that our current problems came about because of a lack of regulatory oversight and controls.
Posted by: Michael Molligan at August 23, 2010 5:23 PM
Richard,
You deserved the time off and glad you enjoyed it; but obviously the brain didn't take a vacation. Great note. Welcome back to long days and Diet Pepsi. Hope to see you at Page.
Steve
Posted by: Steve Dishart at August 24, 2010 9:35 AM
Richard,
My current visit to your blog was to ascertain if Pepsi was an Edelman client and I am happy to see that they are, since The Pepsi Refresh Project appears to be generating a lot of enthusiasm in an otherwise pessimistic year.
Elizabeth Warren appears to have favorably impressed George Soros, as both have appeared together on several panels in 2010.
Regarding the dysfunction of the US Government, it is virtually impossible for a government not to become dysfunctional when its political systems has been moving in that direction since the end of the cold war. After having an external enemy in the USSR for 44 years, the end of the cold war has created a void (no external enemy). Dualistic thinking appears to require a “them against us” mentality, with the domestic political extremes turning against each other more than ever before and decimating the centrists.
The 18th Century Tea Party was as much or more about representation as taxes. Currently, representation is largely controlled by special interest groups, yet the 21st Century Tea Party movement’s focus is solely on taxes.
Posted by: Hugh Campbell at August 24, 2010 9:22 PM
Mr Edelman,
First I would like to demonstrate my appreciation and disbelief in the idea that a highly respectful and powerful man such as yourself would put time into keeping an open blog filled with educational messages and also, mildly personal updates.The tone of your entries also project the down to earth nature of your personality.The world could use more business leaders like you.
On Idealism of the Next Generation: being a member of the next generation myself,I completely understand the passion the youth of today have for charitable projects and the idea of working for a good cause.Needless to say, I also understand their lack of interest in multi-national co operations.
With only two years to go in finishing my Bachelors Degree in PR with a minor in International Relations, I still dream of using my skills for humanitarian work and spend a lot of time seeking internships in organizations such as UNICEF and UNHCR. The increase in corruption of profit oriented business co operations have prompt many my age to diverge away from them.
Professor Wiesel's words “The guilty feel innocent and the innocent feel guilty in today’s world.” could not be better said.
Posted by: Setareh Fasihnia at August 25, 2010 2:39 PM
Thank you for this useful and valuable posting, appreciated a lot. Keep up the great work!
Posted by: Eric at September 2, 2010 1:14 PM
Post a comment
| TrackBackAugust 12, 2010
The Man Who Sold America
I am on vacation for this week and the next. My days include going to the grocery store, playing tennis, riding my bike, going to the beach with my kids and picking tomatoes. But above all, I love to sit on the back porch, reading books that will entertain and inform me. I have just finished The Man Who Sold America, a new biography of Albert Lasker, legendary advertising man, by Jeff Cruikshank and Arthur W. Schultz (former CEO of Foote, Cone & Belding, successor firm to Lord & Thomas, which was headed by Lasker).
The advertising business prior to Lasker “served mainly as intermediaries between advertisers and publishers….were little more than brokers of magazine and newspaper space….the more successful advertising firms had spheres of influence….J. Walter Thompson controlled space in the nation’s leading women’s magazines, NW Ayer controlled the agricultural publications.” The copy was secondary to “keeping the client’s name before the customer. Clients wrote the ads and even were kidding their own names, about the worst thing you can do, such as Armour’s Ham What Am. That was advertising: sloganizing.”
Lasker changed the essence of advertising to “salesmanship in print…advertisers had to give consumers a reason why they should buy their goods.” Here are some examples of campaigns that worked:
- Van Camp’s Evaporated Milk—Make the “scalded taste” a comparative advantage by asking consumers to look for the almond flavor, “turning vice to virtue”
- Schlitz Beer—Pure beer must be filtered then sterilized in the bottle, making it healthful. The Schlitz brewery in Milwaukee had plate glass windows to give visitors a clean view of the process
- Quaker Puffed Rice Cereal—Tag line was “Food Shot from a Gun”. The firm invented a personality, Professor Anderson, to explain the process as “personalities appeal, soulless companies don’t”
- Goodyear Tires—Moving the brand from “Straight-Cut” to “All Weather” allowed it to become the #1 in category
- Sunkist Oranges—A combined ad and PR campaign for Orange Week in Iowa in March, 1908, with fruit shipped in special bannered trains and ads touting “Oranges for Health, California for Wealth”, yielding a 50% jump in sales
- Kotex—Going direct to consumer with sanitary napkins was considered heresy. Lasker developed a “trained nurses recommend” campaign, then worked with the client to develop a plain white box with a blue ribbon that was available on store shelves without asking the pharmacist.
- Lucky Strike cigarettes—Lasker suggested that the client stop supporting its nearly 50 brands and concentrate spending on Luckies. He linked the “toasting” process of Luckies to “reduced acidity on the throat that “protected the voice.” He recruited Metropolitan Opera star sopranos to give advertising testimonials and did not even have to pay them—they just wanted the publicity associated with the endorsements. He later initiated a campaign that suggested a weight loss regimen via smoking, “Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet.”
Here are a few rules from Lasker’s agency that might prove useful to all of us. On the creative process, “no man is privileged to reject his own ideas, no matter how absurd…it is a healthy conflict where everybody attacks everybody’s work with no quarter given and no pride at stake.” On working at a firm, “Try to learn from everyone, high and low…he finally leads who first learns to serve….always think of the other fellow’s viewpoint and try to get him to think of yours…Believe in yourself and grow creatively every minute so that you will justify your belief.”
He had a rather limited view of public relations, perhaps shaped by his brief foray into the political campaign business, working against Upton Sinclair’s bid for Governor of California in 1934. Sinclair, a well known author and muckraker (The Jungle on the meat industry in 1906) frightened business with promises of higher taxes and communal industry. Lasker mobilized his agency, finding new ways to reach voters, including a series of radio soap operas such as The Bennetts, in which members of a middle class family worried about the effects of Sinclairism (no more church choir if atheist governor elected). The favorite billboard ad was a supposed quote from Sinclair (taken out of context), “If I am elected Governor, I expect one of the unemployed in the US will hop the first freights to California.” Phony newsreels were produced for the cinema, with “swarthy indigents from Eastern Europe endorsing Sinclair—‘Vell his system vorked vell in Russia, vy can’t it verk here?” Pamphlets were prepared “quoting all he had said against the Catholics, and another against the Jews, under the cover of ‘By His Own Words Shall Ye Know Him.” His motto on PR: a few simple ideas hammered home steadily.
Lasker retired from advertising in 1942, selling his clients to a start-up of three of his employees, Messrs. Foote, Cone and Belding. He spent his remaining ten years in philanthropy, giving generously to mental health, cancer and contraception. He persuaded the American Society for the Control of Cancer to change its name to the American Cancer Society. His mission was to “do something of significance.” That is a goal each of us can embrace.
Posted by Edelman at 4:37 PM |
Comments
For all of Lasker's brilliance one has to ponder his responsibility in cynically promoting smoking and the -apparent- contradiction with his later support of the American Cancer Society. He was/is not the first among tobacco promoters/manufacturers wanting to cash on cigarette sales and also feeling good for supporting the fight against cancer.
Posted by: Philippe Boucher at August 13, 2010 6:04 PM
Hey Richard,
We're holding down the fort here, although we may have an intern or two use your desk while you're out.
Sounds like a fascinating book. Thanks for the overview of Lasker's life's work. I do remember that song "This is the cereal that's shot from guns!" It's had a fifty year lifespan in my head, although I could never imagine how they'd set up a factory to do that little trick. Maybe they just made the cereal on a large battlefield...
It sounds like Lasker's application of "no quarter given" in the creative process may have been extended to near character assassination in his work against Sinclair's run for governor. In that, he seems like a forerunner to the Lee Atwaters and Karl Roves of a later time.
Posted by: Jim Markowich at August 18, 2010 11:22 AM
Post a comment
| TrackBackAugust 3, 2010
A Moral Man
I had an hour long meeting this morning with Elie Wiesel -- professor at Boston University, Nobel Laureate, writer (57 books) and Holocaust survivor. Our firm is doing pro-bono work for the Prix Gallien, a world life sciences forum being held in New York City at the end of September. Professor Wiesel is involved with the event as a member of the organizing committee.
Here are my impressions of Wiesel. He is slight and of middling height, with a rumpled look befitting a man of letters. His office is modest, filled to the brim with books. On the darkened passageway en route to his office hang photos of Jewish life in Europe prior to the Holocaust, including one of an aged religious man, his face wrinkled, his arms full of Hebrew texts. He has a very firm handshake. He muses more than speaks. His observations are pointed and intended to provoke thought, not simply repartee.
Here are a few of his observations:
“An educator brings justice into the world.”
“Share what you know and what you feel, from joy to despair.”
“Does a 90 year old person have less of a right to live than an 18 year old (in discussion about access to end of life medical care versus cost to society)”
“We have seen worse” (describing his reaction to the midnight call from his financial advisor who told him that Bernard Madoff had lost all of Wiesel Foundation money
“Since we have to do it, we do it" (how the Wiesel Foundation gathered funds in the wake of the Madoff scandal in order to maintain its programming)
“Not even Madoff can bring shame to an entire community…it is wrong to condemn any group for the evil of one”
“There is tremendous progress in the sciences. Contrast that to the crisis in literature and philosophy. Where is the Tolstoy or Thomas Mann of this generation?”
“You can make more of a difference today in business than in politics.”
“We need leaders in the world who are courageous enough to stand up and raise their voices on important issues. And when they stand up, people will listen.”
As we were preparing to leave, he related a story about the opening of the US Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. “I had stayed up all night. There were 36 heads of state represented. I would be meeting President Bill Clinton for the first time. I wrote a beautiful text to deliver. The building was spectacular. The only problem—the Museum staff had not counted on torrential rain. As President Clinton and I sat on stage, water was soaking our shoes. I was to go first, then introduce the President. I reached into my pocket for the speech and realized it was soaked and illegible. I decided it was best to improvise. I feel that I did well enough. Then President Clinton reached for his speech and had a perfectly clean text because his staff had provided a plastic sheath. I understood the value of a supporting cast at that moment! I am also proud to report that during my speech, I talked about my visit to Bosnia and how the USA had a responsibility to stop the genocide. At a later date, President Clinton told me that I was the one person who persuaded him to reconsider American involvement in that conflict.”
One man can make a difference in the world. Here is a quote from the introduction to his book, Night, which describes his experience in Auschwitz:
Posted by Edelman at 5:49 PM |
Comments
I read "Night" for the first time about ten years ago. Since then it's stayed on my shelf, at the ready. While I've not taken occasion to crack the spine of that book again, I take something stranger than comfort in its place on the shelf. That book was a profound experience in itself and its presence has continued to anchor me in a way that the simple physicality of a diminutive paperback couldn't. This was an incredible reminder (set of reminders, actually) with which to end the business day.
Posted by: To Kiss the Cook at August 3, 2010 7:44 PM
"What I do know is that there is a response in responsibility."
To this day, that is probably the most resonating quote--and book--from high school. I'm unsure I would know what to say in the presence of such character as Elie Wiesel.
Thanks for sharing the experience.
Posted by: Josh Morris at August 4, 2010 8:59 AM
When you get to meet a person who's moral can generate inspiration and faith from their past experiences of suffering and despair. It give many the opportunity and motivation to find another way to make things work.
Our elders are the best mentors and Elie Wiesal, which thanks to you Edelman has brought quite a inspiration to me today on my birthday.
Any person that has survived the holocaust is a back to back champion as much as the L.A Lakers. Thank you
Posted by: Corey j. Tronchin at August 5, 2010 10:33 AM