As the riot itself unfolded on live television, the riot’s instigators and youth caught up in the fray made countless posts to Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere, recording and documenting their activities. Some of the images they posted were bizarrely compelling; others were undoubtedly evidence of criminal activity. (The ‘social media vigilantism’ of the following week has also been an interesting topic of vibrant discussion.) News of the riot quickly spread around the world, making cover stories in Australia, India and elsewhere. Vancouverites collectively hung their heads in shame that their fair city—which had received accolades for its positive celebrations during the 2010 Olympic Winter Games just 12 months before—should again showcase an ugly side.

Yet at the same time as the riot was unfolding, so too was the Clean Up Vancouver campaign. Launched on the night of the riots on Facebook, this simple campaign invited positive Vancouverites to come downtown the following morning to help clean up after their not-so-positive fellow citizens. By 7:00am, hundreds of people were downtown with brooms and dustpans; by noon, some reports suggested more than 10,000 had joined the Clean Up. Plywood boarding over the broken windows of one major retailer became the ‘Love Wall,’ on which people wrote messages of apology and respect.

This Jekyll and Hyde capacity of social media is both powerful and puzzling. It’s powerful in its capacity to rally thousands of people to positive action. Yet, it’s puzzling, because it as easily can be used to drive disruption. However and organization might choose to use social media and its unparalleled reach, posts and other content are there forever, for anyone to see. And it is precisely this unprecedented transparency that gives organizations pause. Should we open up?

In a recent keynote at the Institute of Fundraising‘s National Convention in London, UK, I spoke about one organization that seized the potential advantage of transparency—somewhat to its own surprise.

Charity: Water is a US NGO that provides clean drinking water to rural areas in some of the world’s poorest countries. They dig wells in countries of sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia. Each year, they run a ‘September Campaign’ to celebrate the anniversary of their founding (September 7). A key feature of the campaign is the live, online broadcast of Charity: Water’s latest well drilling project. For their first three years, this had been a tremendous morale- and awareness-building opportunity.

September 7, 2010, also happened to be Charity: Water founder Scott Morrison’s 35th birthday. So he was excited to be drilling a new well—to be broadcast live, online—in Moale, Central African Republic. Geologists had identified a perfect spot, where water was anticipated to be accessible between 500 and 700′ below the surface. A special drill was brought in that was capable of drilling to 800′, cameras were set up, and drilling began. It takes hours and hours to drill that far into the ground, but by 9:00pm, the drill had penetrated some 300′ into the ground. That’s when disaster struck.

The bore hole collapsed on itself. During the live broadcast. Supporters and donors around the world saw Charity: Water fail at their core service. The funds they’d donated went completely to waste. And there was no hiding from the damage.

The Charity: Water team began again, and worked through the night to make a second attempt. It also failed. And the following morning, Morrison stood in front of the camera—still broadcasting live—and shared his disappointment openly and honestly with his viewers. He expected to be rebuked, to lose key funders, and to suffer criticism from supporters. The opposite turned out to be true.

“We appreciate your transparency,” said one Twitter contact. “I think this is perhaps even more important than sharing your successes,” said a Facebook post. “Even with the best planning, scientific data and equipment, you can have a myriad of problems… thank you for sharing your challenges,” said a field engineer that supports Charity: Water’s work.

Rather than punishment, Charity: Water was congratulated for their hard work, and for honestly sharing that 5% of their well-drilling attempts do fail. They aren’t infallible.

Their website received more traffic that day than in the history of Charity: Water. Their support solidified even further. And their donations took a positive, upward turn.

This sort of transparency is daunting to many. The ‘old school’ public relations approach would be to bury a story like this: Failures were not to be shared; they were to be shunned! But that was never realistic. And today, ‘keeping a lid’ on such a story is impossible: Just one Tweet from one field operator at Charity: Water would make the story public. Rather than hiding from this transparency, Morrison and Charity: Water seized it as an opportunity to forge valuable connections with important stakeholders around the world. What may have appeared to be risky was really just an exercise in openness and honesty.

Every organization—in business, in the social sector, and otherwise—must acknowledge that this transparency is the new reality. Hiding from it is an ostrich-like, self-defeating exercise. Opening to it, and seizing its advantages is one way to build relationships of trust and goodwill.

Ultimately, transparency is about respect. As Scott Morrison said, “Perhaps people wanted us to fail…. I don’t think so. I think people just want to know the truth.”

Demands on non-profits and social service agencies are already overwhelming capacity. And those demands will soar in the coming decade as people migrate to urban centres looking for work.

The complexities inherent in these new population dynamics and their consequent social impacts are difficult to fathom. As with any other complex problems, smart practices will allow for effective solutions to emerge. One of those is the development of social enterprise, a nascent, but growing sector that in some pockets is even outperforming traditional commercial business. Already recognized as an important part of the ‘Third Sector’ in the UK, and flashing on to the policy radars of governments across North America, social enterprise is a useful alternative to charitable fundraising for many NGOs and not-for-profit organizations.

The simplest definition of a social enterprise is a for-profit business operated by and for the benefit of a not-for-profit or charity. Many examples exist: Thrift stores that flow their profits to a designated charity, gift stores and cafes in public institutions, and so on. However, the diversity of models and of the jargon used to describe these double and triple bottom line organizations is confusing at best and detrimental at worst. “Social enterprise” or “social venture?” Or corporate “social responsibility?” Or “social purpose business?” While the terminology has its advocates, three models seem to be emerging as dominant:

• Social Enterprises with Indirect Benefits are those operated at arms length from their parent charities or the issues they support. In Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, a working class community known for its runaway drug-related crime rates and as the destination for a multitude of barriered individuals, Pot Luck Cafe runs a catering business, the revenue and profits from which support hiring of local residents, a significant meals program, and a nutrition awareness program. While the catering business operates outside the neighbourhood, the indirect benefits of its work are diverse.
• Social Enterprise with Direct Benefits are those whose operations are its social programs. In the same Downtown Eastside neighbourhood, United We Can is a not-for-profit social enterprise that employs 22 local residents full-time, and more than 120 part-time in their bottle depot. Last year, over 1.6 million bottles and cans were redeemed through the depot by binners, creating an income stream that went directly into their pockets. Everyclick, a client of Octopus Strategies, has developed the Give as you Live® system, which helps online shoppers to generate charitable donations—at no cost to them. Online retailers simply agree to share a portion of their commission or revenues on purchases with the charity of each Give as you Live account-holders choice. The benefits are directly channeled to users’ favourite causes.
• Social Purpose Business Initiatives are those fueled either through the corporate social responsibility efforts of for-profit companies or their foundations. As companies move from chequebook philanthropy toward more engaged and mutually reinforcing programs of social engagement—and as they’re pressed to do so by concerned citizens, stakeholders and customers—their potential positive impact on social issues may be invaluable.

In each of these cases, “forward-looking organizations are aligning purpose with practical business programs, in service of profound community needs,” as has been asserted by David LePage of Enterprising Non-Profits in Vancouver. Social enterprises are a fundamental rethinking of the NGO space, in that they assume structured responsibility for funding programs that in a new era of conservatism and austerity, are no longer underwritten by governments.

Social enterprises are ambitiously confronting complex problems in myriad different ways. From the perspective of charitable fundraising, they provide examples of new models and new approaches that are replacing outdated modes of development. Smart fundraisers and not-for-profit leaders should be looking to these opportunities, particularly as the consider their capacity to develop much coveted unrestricted funding for their programs.

This is the second in a series of three posts that summarize a keynote presentation delivery July 7 to the National Convention of the Institute of Fundraising in London, UK.

Stories such as his strike a devastating blow to our faith in the goodness of humanity; sadly, it is too easy and far from accurate to dismiss Hamza’s story as the result of a deranged security officer. In fact, Amnesty has reported numerous other children and teenagers have been tortured and murdered since Hamza’s story broke around the world. So the problem is even more disturbing and complex than one would at first believe.

It is this complexity that fundraisers, activists and social change leaders face across a diverse range of issues and problems. From the Arab Morning to climate change to urban degradation, complex problems require distinct approaches from simple ones.

The Cynefin framework spells out a useful rubric for assessing four different types of problems:

1. Simple problems are like baking a cake, or raising funds for a program in an established charity. These problems are easily categorized, cause and effect are predictable, and best practices can be applied to resolve them.
2. Complicated problems are like landing an aircraft, or mounting a capital campaign for a new, major infrastructure project. Diverse factors must be analyzed and understood before good practices can be applied.
3. Complex problems are like raising a child, or resolving the crises spreading across the Middle East today. Cause and effect can only be assessed with the benefit of hindsight; we must respond without a full detailing of the problem, and allow the right practices to emerge as we work on solutions.
4. Chaotic problems have no systems-level cause and effect correlation. In situations like those faced by Banda Aceh in the days following the 2004 tsunami, equipped NGOs acted as best they could, analyzed how their efforts were working, and adjusted their approaches. They had to innovate in real time to deliver aid.

In the realm of fundraising, simple problems are easily addressed: Training for any fundraising designation will include learning of best practices that can be applied to simple problems. The same is essentially true for complicated problems, though these are more often addressed by teams who collectively can complete adequate analysis and assessment, before devising a plan. Chaotic problems necessarily require instinctive, rapid action; select NGOs such as CARE and the Red Cross are equipped to be this responsive, but each emergency requires different solutions. They learn and adapt in real time.

Complex problems, though, can only be addressed if diverse expertise, significant energy, openness to new ideas and approaches, and adaptive leadership are brought to bear.

During my keynote, I used the case of British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest to explain how complex problems can be addressed through focused, structured, multi-party collaborations. After the successful completion of the Rainforest Solutions Project’s 10-year campaign to save the Great Bear, the team wrote and published a book that looks back at the campaign, its structure, and seven key lessons that they learned in the development of the collaborative that united NGOs, industry, First Nations and government. To their seven, I’ve added three additional criteria to define this list of guidelines for developing effective collaborations in the face of complex challenges:

1. Be Bold: Paint a clear, concise and compelling vision of change. This will rally and focus the team.
2. Build Power: Real change requires real influence. Understand where power lies, and engage those groups and individuals in the collaborative.
3. Create Coalitions: Find strength in numbers.
4. Build Common Ground: Create alliances of ‘strange bedfellows’—and learn from each other.
5. Lead from Shared Values: Establish codes of conduct early and collectively. How we work is as important as what we do.
6. Be Proactive: Design and drive the solutions. Demonstrate leadership, and share management.
7. Practice Humility: Lose your ego. No individual or individual organization has the answers, and being right today doesn’t at all imply we’ll have the right ideas tomorrow.
8. Stay Positive: Persistent optimism is infectious.
9. Mobilize Learning: Complexity requires emergent solutions. Mistakes will be made. Everyone involved must learn from them.
10. Build In Objectivity: It’s easy to lose sight of the big picture, when you’re involved day-to-day. A control committee is a powerful objective auditor.

Complexity can be daunting and overwhelming, but with appropriate strategy and productive collaboration, complexity can be addressed and the major issues we face can be resolved.

Tuesday June 7, 3:30 – 5:00 PM

Followed by a social reception with 1% for the Planet Members, 5:00 – 7:00 PM

Cross Media Lab at W2 Media Cafe

111 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC

Join us at the newly opened W2 Media Café for an interactive session with Mountain Equipment Co-op and 1% for the Planet. 1% for the Planet members are located in 44 countries, and each of their 1,400 business members donate at least one percent of revenues to environmental causes.

Led by BC-based businesses like Mountain Equipment Co-op, Sterling Lorence, Saul Good Gift Co., Horne Coupar, and Hemp and Company, 1% members have given over $3.2 million to Canadian NGOs like CPAWS, the Pacific Salmon Foundation, the David Suzuki Foundation and dozens more since 2002.

Hear from 1% staff and MEC sustainability team about the 1% model and business value in being part of a network of companies investing over $20 million annually in grassroots environmental work and sustainability issues. After the meeting, please stick around for an informal cocktail reception with 1% members, NGOs, and fellow Vancouver business leaders

Please let us know if you’re planning to attend by emailing Danny: danny@onepercentfortheplanet.org. Questions? Contact Danny at 802-496-5408.

We hope to see you on June 7. Please spread the word!

P.S. Interested in learning more about 1% before the event? Please check out their short film, [one percent] of the story

Larry Brilliant at Skoll. Image used with permission of Skoll World Forum.

Many of the challenges social enterprise aims to resolve are the greatest challenges faced by humanity: Poverty. Climate change. Conflict. And each is made more challenging by its interweaving with the others. Resolution of these global challenges requires us to “rejoice in complexity,” as was suggested by Stephan Chambers, Director of the MBA degrees at Oxford University’s Saїd Business School, during the opening plenary of the 2011 Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship.

The Forum’s theme for this year was, “”Large Scale Change — ecosystems, networks and collaborative action.” Laudable on its face, the theme gave rise to a series of dialogues over the Forum’s three days that made clear big problems require big solutions. Social enterprise, and in particular its “undisputed star,” microfinance, has demonstrated its capacity to deliver that change, exemplifying Einstein’s assertion that “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

The diversity of people, nations, ideas and enterprises present at the Skoll Forum certainly demonstrated our collective capacity to define new models and pursue new solutions. Yet few organizations have achieved scale without simultaneously diluting their impact. And therein lies the paradox:

As they grow, social enterprises’ capacity to be responsive and need-focused inevitably erodes.

In order to counter this trend away from responsiveness and toward defense of the new status quo, Professor Ngaire Woods outlines a series of important trends that she believes must continue if social enterprise is to deliver on its promise:

1. Forging Participation: The most successful social enterprises are those that are founded (or at least co-founded) by local people. The encouragement of local participation is one distinguishing factor between charity models and social enterprise. It also has the added benefits of optimizing solutions based on local customs and ideals, and encouraging local employment–key to lifting people out of poverty.
2. Demand-Driven Approach: Another flaw in the charity model has been charities’ penchant to foist solutions devised in far-flung offices on local people and populations. Rather than asking what’s wanted or needed, or including locals’ perspectives and aspirations in planning, too many failed aid organizations and social enterprises have presumed flawed solutions, or at least failed to anticipate challenges present in market areas that aren’t consistent with the enterprises’ home experience.
3. Results-based Legitimacy: Social enterprises must be judged not on their intent or some idealized vision, but on their success–on their capacity to deliver ongoing, positive outcomes. The continual asking of ‘What have you done for me lately?’ is the surest way to avoid the paradoxical reduction of impact as social enterprises scale.

So what does all this mean for the aspiring social entrepreneur?

As if the challenging balancing act of a ‘triple bottom line’ weren’t enough, the unrelenting march of transparency and responsibility (both good things!) is making the field of social enterprise yet more challenging. Operators are being held to the same high standards as their traditionally corporate counterparts, despite arguably more complex business models and far-reaching ambitions. This presents unprecedented challenges to leaders and their teams. We suggest five key leadership skills essential to social entrepreneurs:

1. Ongoing personal development: Self-motivated leaders must be aware of their own strengths, values and limitations, while also taking responsibility for their own development. This clarity of capacity is essential if leaders are to maximize their own contributory value.
2. Foster others’ development: Engaging leaders support others–their colleagues and teams–in their own personal and professional development. They must create environments of learning and reflection, where teams constantly adapt. Innovation is the result of personal and team development.
3. Insist on collaboration: Highly complex problems rarely, if ever, are solved by individual actors operating in isolation. Instead, they’re the result of a consistent, concerted team effort. Collaboration is a vital aspect of organizational life in the 21st century. Learning to collaborate is among a leader’s (and a leadership team’s) foremost requirements.
4. Uncommit when necessary: While leaders must of course set a clear direction for their teams and organizations, they must also act quickly in response to evidence that contravenes their chosen direction. To be willing to ‘uncommit’ is essential. Missions, visions and operating plans must be flexible to respond to valid evidence–whether positive or negative in implication. The willingness to admit failure, to reconsider evidence, and to commit afresh to a new direction is not to be criticized; rather, the humbling admission that “we were wrong” must be held up as a simple fact of organizational life. No leader was ever right every time. Nor will tomorrow’s social entrepreneurs be right on every project, program or enterprise.
5. Champion change: Successful leaders act as champions for and orchestrators of the “change they wish to see in the world.” As champions, they rally others around them, providing the inspiration to persevere when the going gets tough. As orchestrators, they effectively unite disparate ideas, players and organizations, aligning them with their vision and mission.

Social enterprises are at once looking at ways to make micro-impacts on local populations, while also working to shift entire systems of production, consumption and even government. They require inestimably high quality leaders, and remarkably flexible business models. Social entrepreneurs are far from being an obscure subset of organizational leaders. Their willingness to face up to humanity’s biggest problems, and to continue adapting and adjusting their work to resolve those issues makes them some of our most important individuals and teams.

Archbishop Tutu. Image used with permission of Skoll World Forum

“Large Scale Change – ecosystems, networks and collaborative action.” This was the theme for the 2011 Skoll World Forum, March 30 to April 1, in Oxford, UK. The diversity of delegates’ nationalities, organizations, missions and ideas was matched only by the diversity of plenary, breakout and workshop session topics. Yet at least a couple of common threads united the conversations of the 900 assembled delegates.

One of these was the question of leadership, and more specifically its role in the development of large scale change.

Amid more than enough academic study, philosophical waxing and journalistic opining, ‘leadership’ has devolved in the past few years to nothing more than another example of rampant organizational rhetoric. Yet at Skoll, the profound insights of unquestionable leaders—Queen Noor of Jordan, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, and our convener, Jeff Skoll himself—shed new light on the emerging revitalization of leadership. This dialogue was perhaps captured best by the question posed in one popular session:

Is Heroism Obsolete?

It’s a powerful question. And it immediately set off a fruitful debate at the apartment I’d rented with Climate Smart‘s Elizabeth Sheehan: “Aren’t heroes just leaders, by another name?” she asked. Or are they distinct, and vital to inspire a new generation of societal visionaries? In a time when our ‘heroes’ have devolved to those who occupy the media spotlight on any given day—film stars and music divas—the question’s poignancy is yet more clear. Who are the examples we would want our children to admire? Whose example would we have them aspire to follow?

We all have heroes. We all look to role models, mentors, exemplars of the character and commitment we’d wish to emulate in the world. They’re shining examples of ethics, dedication, commitment and passion. The Skoll dialogue (links to subsequent BBC World Service broadcast of the panel discussion) identified seven specific elements of heroism:

1. Humility. Every one of the panelists held up humility as a unifying characteristic of heroes. Their capacity to admit failure, to share credit, and to openly admit they do not have all the answers ensures they’re able to convene and collaborate with those who would support them and their cause. “I was only noticed,” said Archbishop Tutu, “because I was held so high on the shoulders of all those who were with me.”
2. Risk: Many (all?) of our heroes accept and embrace a degree of personal risk—financial, social or personal—as they pursue their work. Consider the lives, trials and tribulations of Nelson Mandela, of Rosa Parkes, even of Neil Armstrong. Each of these unquestionable heroes put their safety at risk in service of a mission far bigger than themselves.
3. Persistence: The unwavering commitment to keep pushing along the right path also unites heroes. Sir Winston Churchill argued for a decade or more that the rise of German Naziism ought not to be tolerated. Yet it took a decade for his country and the rest of Europe to realize the threat. Likewise, modern day heroes like Muhammad Yunus have dedicated their lives to a vision of social change that has lifted countless millions out of poverty.
4. Inspirational Influence: Heroes’ ethics, approach and effort is mimicked by others, who in effect amplify their work. Gandhi‘s example is exceptional in this respect: His peaceful ethos galvanized a nation to become what is now the world’s biggest democracy.
5. Activation: Heroes assume responsibility for the ‘change they wish to see in the world.’ They set examples of success. As Aristotle said, “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” Our heroes seem to grasp this mantra intuitively, and so set for us all shining and inspiring examples.
6. Transparency: Our heroes have nothing to hide. They are open and communicative in their aims, their actions and their aspirations. “I have a dream,” said Dr. King. And he proceeded to open his heart to a nation, catalyzing a movement and an unprecedented generational change in America. His was not a hidden plan, but an open, welcoming dialogue with his countrymen.
7. Accessibility: Churchill liked his whiskey. Questions arose (perhaps maliciously) that Dr. King had extramarital liaisons. JFK almost certainly did. Yet we largely forgive our heroes for their indiscretions and their flaws. In fact, it helps us accept that they’re human, like the rest of us, which only makes their examples more valuable: If they can do it, why can’t we?

I’m fortunate to have heroes in my life: My father, for his infinite patience, his unquestionable ethics, and for a dedication to family he shares with my wife, another hero of mine. These people are not my ‘leaders,’ but they set an example for me that I try to emulate every day. Beyond my family, historical figures like Churchill and Gandhi have inspired my commitment to human rights and positive engagement. While they were leaders in their time, they are not my leaders today. No, something else is at play here.

Heroes are vital. They are exemplars for humanity. They demonstrate in words and in action the infinite capacity of human endeavour. They show us our nobility. And they reveal for us the possibilities for a just, connected, and supportive world.

A new generation of entrepreneurs and social change leaders rejects short-term, unsustainable practices, and aims instead to build organizations around enduring values. Yet many cause-driven organizations—whether not-for-profit, social venture or social enterprise—struggle to find their voice.
How should they engage donors, customers, staff and others in their mission? How do they focus their story, pitch and appeals to generate the greatest returns? And how do they stand apart in cluttered, competitive markets? We’ll be including the insights of new research and access to some of the tools and techniques that are typically reserved for our international roster of high impact social change clients.

Mike Rowlands, Founder & President of Octopus Strategies, will co-present this workshop with Stephen Abbott. Together, they’ve helped mission-driven organizations around the world to develop authentic, value-driven and inspiring brands. They’ll share examples, insights and experiences, while helping you to identify ways to distinguish your organization in a marketplace that’s increasingly conscious and ever more crowded.

The workshop will be offered only twice in 2011—both times in partnership with Hollyhock in Vancouver. The workshop does require advanced registration. Tuition per session is $185 CDN. Non-profit, Student, Senior: $165 CDN. Program dates are Wednesday, April 13 and Thursday, April 14 or Wednesday, October 5 and Thursday October 6, from 1:00pm – 5:00pm in Vancouver.

To make this meaningful contribution to the emerging social enterprise sector, Octopus Strategies partnered with Enterprising Non-Profits to produce the Social Enterprise Marketing Toolkit, which we unveiled on November 5 at the first ever Social Enterprise Meetup in Vancouver.

Throughout Canada’s western-most Province of British Columbia, there are some 240 established social enterprises, each dedicated to addressing or supporting vital social and community projects and priorities. ‘Social Enterprise’ is defined as a traditional business, operated by a not-for-profit either to directly fulfill its mission, or to channel funds back into the purse of the not-for-profit itself.

In other countries, social enterprise is well established—especially in the UK, where it’s now seen as a vital priority for the national government. By contrast, it is a slowly emerging sub-sector in Canada. Yet in a context of economic constraint, and amid budget cuts to government funding for arts, cultural and social organizations, social enterprise presents significant opportunities.

Made up of five videos and a series of accompanying worksheets, the Toolkit introduces foundational marketing theory, and presents specific examples from BC’s social enterprises and some of Octopus Strategies’ proprietary tools. Some of these tools, such as the Value Spectrum™ and the Message Matrix™ involve approaches that have previously been available only to paying clients.

The Toolkit has been designed to make marketing and communications expertise accessible and applicable for social sector leaders who often have no training or background in marketing. They get pragmatic and actionable techniques they can apply immediately in their social enterprises.

The Toolkit has been launched as a ‘beta’ product and is available online at Octopus Strategies or at Enterprising Non-Profits. Feedback and suggestions for improvement or clarification can be sent to info@enterprisingnonprofits.ca or setoolkit@octopusstrategies.com.

This is the question posed in the title of a Harvard Business Review article published April 28 and written by Ron Ashkenas, author of The Boundaryless Organization. His answer, which draws on the current case against Goldman Sachs, and the ongoing trials and tribulations of Toyota’s quality control progams, among others, posits that reputation management “may need to be part of everyone’s responsibility.”

When any stakeholder—customer, employee, investor, etc.—chooses to buy from, work with or invest in any organization, their decision is based at least in part on the organization’s reputation. Based on the historical performance and customer care of an organization like Disney (another of Ashkenas’s examples), we expect a certain experience: For customers, that’s fabulous, family-friendly entertainment; for employees, its an amazing, innovative work environment; for investors, it’s a healthy, reliable return on their investment in the form of regular dividends.

Organizations that don’t hold to their own standards of responsibility inevitably erode their own reputations: Toyota’s current experience, for example, implies a betrayal of their legendary quality control practices. They’re fortunate to have such a strong reputation, forged through decades of strict adherence to their core values; they’ll likely weather the current storm. However, their customers won’t be fooled again. Repeated errors and quality gaffes will erode Toyota’s reputation, sales, and market share.

Reputation management—and brand management—require the care and attention of leaders, managers, and everyone else in an organization. A strong brand requires a remarkable degree of personal responsibility. How successful and consistent is your brand at enhancing its reputation?

This expectation of an experience is precisely our definition of the word brand.

Organizations can choose to embed responsibility for this expectation in their operations and standards, or they can choose to let it follow the whim of circumstance. In Disney’s case, leadership and management “make every employee feel responsible for the entertainment products and services they provide.” Johnson & Johnson, legendary for their adherence to their ‘credo,’ emphasizes every employee’s “responsibility to put the well-being of the people they serve first.” These are two of the most reputable firms in the world. And they’re also two of the most valuable brands in the world.

This is the latest in a long line of sustainability initiatives for the Inn: When a landmark Arthur Erickson-designed extension to the Inn was built 20 years ago, it included a seawater thermal heat and cooling exchange. This was “long before people were thinking about that sort of stuff,” notes the Inn’s General Manager, Ian Powell.

Other initiatives include paperless check-in, room keys made of recycled paper and printed with vegetable-dye inks, an organic herb and veggie garden, reducing waste and increasing recycling, bike racks, optional linen changes for guests and cutting back on use of lights when not needed.

The latest initiative, which the Inn is undertaking in partnership with Vancouver’s Offsetters, will initially support a general portfolio of carbon-offset projects. In the longer term, the Inn hopes to find a Vancouver Island project to support.

The Inn at Laurel Point is both a client and a service-provider to Octopus Strategies. We worked with the Inn’s executive and management team in 2008, helping to develop their ‘Stay Different…’ brand and marketing strategy. We have also hosted executive retreats there for other clients, and wholeheartedly recommend the hotel for its warmth, beauty, and exceptional service standards.

Congratulations to the Inn at Laurel Point from all of us at Octopus on being BC’s first carbon neutral hotel!