100 Best Corporate Citizens

It may not yet carry the weight of the Fortune 500, but it should.  Business Ethics magazine just released its seventh edition of its list of the 100 Best Corporate Citizens.  The magazine declares this list a celebration of "companies that excel at serving a variety of stakeholders well."

It simply is not a matter of how well public companies serve their stockholders today, but whether or not they provide good jobs for employees; contribute to a cleaner environment; relate well to their communities; have good governance practices; and, produce reliable products for their customers.  All that in addition to being able to provide a return on their shareholders' investments.

The companies that live on the list of 100 Best Corporate Citizens are great examples of what we mean by Citizen Brands.  This is the list we all should be striving to be on in the future.  These are the companies that understand the new realities of being truly engaged with their stakeholders and not simply doing business as usual.

Two questions to consider.  Could your company or client make this list today?  What would have to happen to make your company or client eligible to be one of the 100 Best Corporate Citizens?

Comments

[panasianbiz]

Hi, I just wanted to say two things about that list. First, I am surprised that Nike is on there, what with all the allegations of child labor and sweatshop conditions at its overseas production facilities. And second, for all its posturing as a company that does "no evil," I'm surprised that Google is not on the list! Thanks for an interesting read.

[Mike Swenson]

Thanks for your comment. What we all know to be true is that lists cause controversy and conversation. The article states that Nike first appeared in the the list last year at number 31 and its rise to number 13 this year is based on the strength of its community and environmental programs. It was actually number one in the environmental category this year. Its program is seeking to eliminate waste and toxic substances from the production processes. It still has a negative number in the human rights category but the way the formula appears to work is that it is the net effect of all categories. It's interesting to dive into the article and understand how this list is developed.