Eskom bosses forgo bonuses

Now here is a good news story from Business ethics direct:

Eskom boss forgoes bonus
Eskom top boss Jacob Maroga has decided to give up his performance bonus. And the rest of the executive board committee members will only be receiving 50%, reports the Cape Times. This announcement was made by Eskom’s non-executive chairperson Valli Moosa who said there had been much speculation about the bonuses and high remuneration of Eskom’s management. Moosa said Maroga had conducted himself particularly well during the crisis. ‘We took his performance during the crisis into account and concluded that he deserved his bonus and had the right to one,’ Moosa said. ‘However, Maroga came to a meeting with me and said that because of the tough times the company was going through, he was of the view that it would not be right to take his bonus.’

From where I’m sitting all due credit to Mr Maroga and his Executive team – particularly as they are probably working harder now than at any other time in the past.  Why the delay though?  Here was a brilliant opportunity to do the right thing right at the start (I suspect the Eskom remuneration committe would have made it up to the team in the future anyway (assuming the performance metrics were achieved).  But let me not detract from this report in the Cape Times.  It’s never too late to do the right thing and all due credit to Mr Maroga and his Executive team.  Be inspired.  

 

It’s official – the SA Post Office is delusional

So Naspers hopes a one liner response will be sufficient to extricate itself from this mess.  Not so the SA Post Office. Following on from my post on June 23, 2008 about how not to be a good corporate citizen, and citing the SA Post Office as a good example, what does it do?  Publishes a full page advertising feature in The Star, Pretoria News, The Mercury and Cape Times with this earth shattering headline:  Post Office voted National Business of the Year (See The Star 25 June 2008, p. 23).  Well that’s a show stopper if ever I read one.  If you didn’t see the page (costing I suspect in the region of a couple of hundred grand) imagine full colour photographs of the presentation, sub headlines “Recognition for a job well done” and “Distributor of choice …” relating to the use of the Post Office by Sasol to distribute its Inzalo share scheme announcement and prospectus.  Wow.  That’s really impressive considering they could have used er …. come to think of it who else could they have used?  Anyhow back to this prestigious award …  the advertising feature says nothing of the awarding authority, nor the methodology.  A bit suspicious that.  So what does a quick Google dish up?  Incredulous feedback from a bizcommunity announcement (see:  http://www.bizcommunity.com/Snippet/196/14/8475.html) – if you want a laugh read the comments.  MyDigitallife follows a similar theme:  incredulity (see http://technology.za.msn.com/story.asp?storyid=1038366) – it appears that the Award seems to be legit though (see the NBA award brochure http://www.topco.co.za/Events/Upcoming/National%20Business%20Awards/Downloads/nba_brochure.pdf so one can only assume the judges know something that most South Africans don’t (Note to the Post Office:  your increase of 1.9m new addresses would be impressive and worthy of a compliment if you were able to provide Chris Barron with a more telling opinion about the similar increase in post dumping and theft.  And on another point, what happened to your delivery success rate?).  Back to the issue of ethical business practice and the difficulty companies like Naspers and the SA Post Office seem to have in facing crisis moments like they have both experienced in the past week.  First of all stop believing your own spin.  If you got it wrong a simple apology, together with believable and meaningful remedial action would have made both Robert Mugabe and Amazon.com go away.  Probably the same for someone like me.  It would also have given your customers something to celebrate.  Now that would be inspirational. 

Naspers responds – kind of

Thank you for the feedback, I take note of your comments and concerns. 

Regards 

Hein Brand

Response from Naspers/Media24 raises more questions than it answers

Dear Mr Brand 

Thank you for your prompt response.  My experience though is that issues involving business ethics are rarely as complicated as people make them out to be and, using quotes from your email below, I would like to respond as follows: 

1. No communication between the Paarl Media Group and the Zimbabwean Government or Zanu PF
   1. I’m unsure as to the logic you are using here? 
   2. Does this mean that as long as Naspers didn’t know it was doing a print job for Al Qaeda it is ok to do the job? 
   3. What would happen if a right wing party in SA was to use your printers to print material that called for the violent over throw of the democratically elected government?  Not knowing who you are dealing with surely is no defence or excuse?
2. What has transpired is that one of our regular South African clients placed work with Paarl Web Gauteng
   1. Why the secrecy?
   2. Who exactly is this client and since when does Naspers allow its subsidiaries to do print work by proxy?
   3. Will Paarlweb continue to do business with this anonymous client who thinks nothing of misrepresenting itself to you?
3. Our printing works have no editorial capacity and the production staff does not clear any material except to the extent that they have standing instructions to raise alarm if anything looks on the face of it pornographic or illegal . 
   1. Surely as a printer, Naspers/Media24/Paarlweb is required by law to assume responsibility for what it prints?
   2. The idea that someone is capable at Paarlweb of telling when something is pornographic (and banned by e.g. the Advertising Standards Authority – “ASA”) rather than titillating (allowed by the ASA) is not convincing.
   3. Same for the legality of a print job – your response suggests that employees are able to tell when something is legal rather than illegal and yet are ignorant of what is happening in Zimbabwe.
4. I am told that the management of Paarl Media regrets not having had the opportunity to review the printing of this material
   1. Is this as close as you are going to get to an apology?
   2. What does Media24 think?  Naspers?  How about you personally?
   3. Why regret and not “apologizes”.  Regret is what happens when you get caught out not when you are truly remorseful for your actions.
5. Paarl Media Group will make a donation of R300 000, what we estimate the profit on the R2.6 million contract was, to relief efforts in Zimbabwe.
   1. R300 000 by way of reparative damages is in Naspers terms small change.  
   2. Had Naspers or Media 24 agreed to donate the full value of the print job, and carried the input costs yourself, the decision would have moved from tokenism to a meaningful gesture.   

One final point: 

1. Would I be correct in thinking that Naspers/Media24 has lost sight of its moral compass?  Consider if you will:
   1. In recent years, Media24 being found guilty by the High Court of South Africa of plagiarism relating to the launch of Weg (previously Wegbreek)?
   2. In the past year, Media24 being found guilty by the Audit Bureau of Circulation of misrepresentation of copy sales figures?
   3. In the past week, Media24 being prepared to print work for one of the most despotic regimes in the world. 

Good corporate governance – heavily espoused on both the Naspers and Media24 websites – requires more than just good intentions.  It requires a clear moral compass where employees are actively encouraged to live the corporate value statement.  Your email doesn’t address the main issues and it seems to me that Naspers, at best, is prepared to regret an action.  At worst … well at worst, Naspers has lost its moral compass and isn’t even aware of having done so. 

Regards, 

Graham Willcock

Response from Naspers/Media24

Reports on printing for Zimbabwe

You may have seen reports that Paarl Web Gauteng printed material for Zimbabwean clients.

The management of Paarl Web Gauteng assures me that neither the Zimbabwean Government nor Zanu PF is clients, nor has Paarl Media accepted payment from them.  In fact, there was no communication between the Paarl Media Group and the Zimbabwean Government or Zanu PF.

What has transpired is that one of our regular South African clients placed work with Paarl Web Gauteng.   The South African client in question placed the order for the work, provided the material, took delivery of the printed output and paid for the work.  At no stage was Paarl Web Gauteng aware the work was done on behalf of Zanu PF.   

Our printing works have no editorial capacity and the production staff does not clear any material except to the extent that they have standing instructions to raise alarm if anything looks on the face of it pornographic or illegal.   Paarl Media handles in excess of 800 discrete work orders per week, spread over about 13 production plants.  In most countries in the world, it is not practice to subject commercial printing work to structured vetting.

I am told that the management of Paarl Media regrets not having had the opportunity to review the printing of this material through full disclosure by the client. Given the realities of events in Sub-Saharan Africa, Media24 management would, in my view, also have advised against accepting this work if we had been aware of it in advance.

Due to the special situation in Zimbabwe, the Paarl Media Group will make a donation of R300 000, what we estimate the profit on the R2.6 million contract was, to relief efforts in Zimbabwe. Details will be announced next week.

If you have any further queries, I am sure Stephen van der Walt, Paarl Media managing director, will be eager to help.

Regards

Hein Brand

(Managing Director Media24)

Naspers

Naspers is a good example of an organization that has not only lost its moral compass but isn’t even aware of having done so.  The latest proof, if you need it, relates to a story that appeared in Business Day last week and has been picked up by Moneyweb today (http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page39?oid=212074&sn=Detail). It seems that a subsidiary of Naspers (Paarlweb) printed a R3m job for that bastion of democratic thinking Zanu-PF in which it set out around 40 pages worth of editorial garbage as to why Zimbabweans should vote for Robert Mugabe.  What makes this story truly astonishing is that on principle Caxton turned the job down.  So how does Naspers manage the fall out?  Reading the Moneyweb article defies belief at the stone walling, dishonesty and plain disingenious panic of those people ignorant enough to try and come up with an explanation.  My concern here is that this is the third in a growing list of instances where Naspers doesn’t get the need for ethical business practice.  First there was the plagiarism associated with Getaway.  Then there was the misrepresentation of circulation figures.  Now a print job that various Naspers employees would have you believe they never saw and that they are the innocent party in an unreasonable marketplace.   Naspers has a case to answer here and just like the SA Post Office no amount of spin is going to change the need to decide just what happened to that moral compass.  A moral compass that is fundamental to good corporate citizenship.

How not to be a good corporate citizen ….

Is it just me or does anyone else think the SA Post Office has lost the plot? The warning signs have been there for a long time for anyone taking the time to look past the spin.  Did you see the paid-for double page spread ra-ra about the SA Post Office being a good corporate citizen in The Star (May 2008)?  The oxymoronic headline aside, when you start having to tell people you are a good corporate citizen you probably aren’t.  And then how embarrassing to find out via Business Day that Amazon.com has blacklisted you and will no longer make use of your service.  Why?  SA Post Office staff are so dishonest they can’t be depended on and management are seemingly incapable of doing anything about it.  And then Chris Barron, writing in the Sunday Times (June 22, 2008, p. 11) interviews the SA Post Office Group CEO Motshoanetsi Lefoka and concludes:  A master of jargon who says nothing new at all.  I reckon the worst interview year-to-date including Valli Moosa as Chairman of Eskom. I almost felt sorry for her then remembered how much she earns and that she has been in the position as Group CEO for 7 months and acknowledged back in Nov 2007 that theft was an issue (see this article  http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=644367). Bit difficult to act surprised now that Amazon.com won’t use you anymore surely?  So the SA Post Office is my first hall of fame example of a company getting it wrong when it comes to ethical business practice.

Levi’s (Levi South Africa)

Heard Debbie Gebhardt, the Marketing Director of Levi South Africa, the other day talking about the challenges facing clothing and apparel companies in SA and the complexity of marketing to the youth market.  What stood out for me was how clearly Levi’s understands that ethical business practice is the only way to achieve sustainability in a fickle, yet discerning, market.  The Levi’s Original Music initiative ties in nicely with the “cool” positioning of Levi jeans and ensures that the brand always appears to be innovative even though jeans have been a constant through the generations and could so easily have ended up a work place commodity.  Debbie’s genuine passion for the brand and company is infectious as is the Levi belief that it’s possible to make a difference (for the better) in the life of each and every South African. Breathing life into this belief, Levi’’s has a remarkable HIV initiative called Red for life (see http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/40/19126.html) that shows once again it’s possible to seamlessly integrate socially responsible investment with a cool brand.  The result?  An ethical company making a difference while making a great deal of money.  Be inspired.

Transnet

Maria Ramos, the CEO of Transnet, is an interesting lady.  Speaking at a recent Gibs Forum on how she has set about getting things right at the failing transport utility company you couldn’t help but admire her for a number of reasons.  First of all no hiding behind the spin.  These are our problems she said and this is how we have gone about fixing them – why can’t more South African leaders be so direct and self assured?  Secondly, get to know the business from the bottom up.  She talked about how difficult it is to get safety boots to fit her petite feet but nothing four pairs of socks couldn’t fix.  Then out she went, spending four days shunting along railway lines and living on the trains with her staff.  (Not the Blue Train either). That type of realism resonated with an audience of around 180 people who by this stage were starting to warm to someone who isn’t a particularly good speaker but who has a gravitas that commands respect.  And thirdly, she banned all talk of Visions and Mission statements within Transnet – “bring me the behaviours that will show us we have changed and created a platform for growth” she demanded and I was left with the impression anyone who wasn’t up to the task would leave sooner rather than later.  A final point was her clear understanding that at the heart of Transnet is a workforce, some 55 000 strong.  Referring to recent xenophobic attacks across South Africa as a tragedy for all South Africans she asked the audience to stand and to observe a moments silence for those affected.  As the audience rose and went silent you had to admire her for her leadership, her empathy and understanding that corporate social responsibility is the way to change an organization for the better and with it enhance a reputation many thought was beyond redemption.  That’s why Transnet, somewhat surprisingly I might add, makes it onto my list of companies who understand that sustainability depends on ethical business practice. Be inspired.