Dear EarthTalk: What’s being done to “green up” professional sports? I know that the last two Olympic Games both made some effort, but are there others? -- Rob Avandic, Chicago, IL

The last two Olympics were indeed greener than any before, but environmental awareness isn’t limited to the realm of international amateur competition. In fact, in just the last few years all of the major professional North American sports leagues have made strides in greening their operations.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has helped blaze the trail through its “Greening the Games” initiative. Since 2003, when the National Football League’s (NFL) Philadelphia Eagles turned to NRDC for help saving energy and reducing waste, NRDC has helped dozens of pro teams evaluate their environmental impacts and make changes. Today the Eagles obtain all of their energy at Lincoln Field from wind power, pour fans’ beverages in biodegradable corn-based plastic cups, power their scoreboard with solar panels and have reduced electricity use overall by a third. The NFL itself has also jumped on the bandwagon, implementing various green initiatives at the Super Bowl, the Pro Bowl and other big events.

In 2008, NRDC teamed up with Major League Baseball (MLB) to first green the All Star Game and, the following year, the World Series. Subsequently, NRDC assessed each team’s environmental footprint and made recommendations for improving it. Several teams have gone on to build or refurbish their stadiums with sustainability in mind. Boston’s Fenway Park, Atlanta’s Turner Field, Washington, DC’s Nationals Park, and San Francisco’s AT&T Park all get high marks for pro-environment features and operations.

In 2008, NRDC began working with the U.S. Tennis Association (USTA) to green its signature event, the U.S. Open. For one, this led to a move to 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper for tournament programs. And an environmental review of all operations at the National Tennis Center in Queens, New York led to a number of green improvements, including the switch to 90 percent post-consumer recycled paper for some 2.4 million napkins and a move to wind turbines for the tournament’s electricity.

The National Basketball Association (NBA) jumped on the NRDC sports bandwagon in 2009, working with the group to organize its first annual Green Week in early April whereby the entire league works in concert to generate environmental awareness and funding for related causes. As part of the festivities, which took place in 2010 as well and will happen again in April 2011, each NBA team hosted community service events including tree plantings, recycling drives and park clean-up days.

NRDC got the National Hockey League (NHL) in on the act as well, helping to green the Stanley Cup Finals and working with individual teams as it did with baseball and football. In announcing the launch of the NHL Green program, league commissioner Gary Bettman commented that it’s only fitting for professional ice hockey to care about staving off global warming: “Most of our players learned to skate on outdoor rinks. For that magnificent tradition to continue through future generations we need winter weather—and as a league we are uniquely positioned to promote that message.”

Photo by Kevin H., courtesy Flickr

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

From the recent annals of the New York State tax court comes the audacious tale of Hannah Shin, who pleaded guilty in 2007 to embezzling $449,064 from her employer, Fusebox Technologies, by creating false invoices and having client payments directed to companies and bank accounts she controlled.

As part of her felony plea agreement, Ms. Shin was required to make restitution to Fusebox in the amount of $342,678. She was also required to file amended tax returns for the years 2004 and 2005 as well as tax returns for the year 2006.

When Ms. Shin filed her tax returns, she claimed her “restitution to pay back fees” as deductible business expenses.  These justified, she said, a “tax loss carryback,” a standard tax benefit for legitimate businesses that incur legitimate business losses.

Tax officials denied Ms. Shin’s claim that restitution qualified as business expense, noting that “Ms. Shin is making restitution payments in lieu of imprisonment which under the internal revenue code constitutes a ‘fine or similar penalty.’”    Ms. Shin appealed.

In November 2010, an appeals judge ruled against Ms. Shin, noting: “There is nothing in the record to establish that petitioner was engaged in a trade or business while regularly embezzling funds from her employer, and therefore she was not entitled to receive the benefits of carryback provisions when she repaid the stolen money after being caught.”

The judge disallowed all business expenses claimed by Ms. Shin, including $7,000 for “formal wear” and $16,400 for meals and entertainment.  “Petitioner introduced no documentation to substantiate the claimed business expenses in the areas of travel expenses, utilities, cell phone, research material and gratuities,” he said.

The judge suggested that Ms. Shin’s attitude hadn’t helped her case.

"Finally," he wrote, "it is noted that petitioner’s written arguments consisted mainly of unsubstantiated personal attacks on both the auditor and the Division’s representative in this matter. These unsubstantiated allegations added nothing to petitioner’s legal position or the validity of the business expenses claimed, and due to their nature, will not receive a response in this determination.”

When Dimitrios Biller, former National Managing Counsel of Toyota’s National Rollover Program, filed a lawsuit against Toyota in July 2009, he positioned himself as a whistleblower. Among other things, he accused Toyota of withholding and destroying product safety information.

However, three things didn’t add up then.

• If Biller believed Toyota had committed fraud, why did he accept a $3.7 million severance package in 2007  and sign a confidentiality agreement?
• Why, if Biller believed Toyota had withheld product safety information that plaintiffs’ attorneys were entitled to see, did his website promote himself as being responsible for legal victories in product safety cases that he bragged saved Toyota significant dollars?
• What kind of ethical slope had Biller put himself on and why would he further risk his reputation? He kept the severance and when he left Toyota absconded with 6,000 internal documents.

At the time he filed suit he said he was released from attorney-client privilege because Toyota had committed criminal acts.

Not surprisingly, Toyota found out Biller had confidential documents and was using them in classes he taught on legal discovery. Toyota filed suit against him last year. Toyota said then that Biller violated attorney-client privilege, his ethical and professional obligations, and a restraining order Toyota had obtained against him. The company accused Biller of making inaccurate and misleading allegations.

After Toyota sued him, Biller sued Toyota back, accusing the company of racketeering, defamation, inflicting emotional distress, and wrongful termination. Messy.

In February 2010, Biller’s Toyota documents were subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee looking into the unintended acceleration issue. Although Biller’s documents weren’t related to unintended acceleration, the committee was interested in how Toyota approached safety.

In reviewing the documents, Committee chair Rep. Edolphus Towns found evidence that Toyota routinely withheld company records rather than turn them over to the court, settling personal injury cases to avoid revealing engineering data. Towns indicated this was a violation of court discovery orders in litigation. 

Meanwhile Biller’s lawsuit against Toyota went to arbitration. Last week the arbitrator, Judge Gary Taylor, found that Biller betrayed the confidences of his client, Toyota, and “violated ethical, statutory, and contractual prohibitions.”

Judge Taylor ordered Biller to return the documents, drop his lawsuit, and pay $2.6 million in damages to Toyota. Toyota in a statement expressed vindication and said the Judge’s award “completely discredits his (Biller’s) meritless attacks on our company and our people.” Biller represented himself in arbitration and hasn’t yet made a statement.

Biller misused the term whistleblower. His methods were ruled a violation of attorney-client privilege and he behaved unethically, further jeopardizing his professional reputation. Whatever damage Biller’s accusations have done to Toyota, the company has been deluged by federal criticism and international media on its handling of safety and unintended acceleration. In the absence of transparency, Toyota has found public trust and reputation are jeopardized.

While Toyota might say it is vindicated by the ruling, and Biller might say he is vindicated by Congressional criticism of the automaker, this is a sad tale without vindication.

Gael O’Brien is a Business Ethics Magazine columnist. Gael is a thought leader on building leadership, trust, and reputation and writes The Week in Ethics, a weekly column where this article was first published.

Picture World Economic Forum/ Remy Steinegger

As the World Economic Forum (WEF) opens on Wednesday, in the tiny Swiss ski village of Davos, some 2,500 CEOs and senior executives, heads of state, politicians, policy makers and journalists will gather to listen to speeches, attend panel sessions, drink at cocktail parties and dinners, and network like crazy in an effort to justify the time and expense of spending a week in highly comfortable accommodations in the Alps.

It will be interesting to see how many of them wind up taking The Global Business Oath.

Yes, there is one – and you, too, can pledge.

The Global Business Oath is the product of the WEF’s Forum of Young Global Leaders – some 200-300 “extraordinary individuals, drawn from every region of the world” who, the WEF says, “together, form a powerful international community that can dramatically impact the global future.”

At last year’s meetings in Davos, the WEF reports, the young global leaders launched an initiative “based on the idea of an oath for business leaders that would serve as a guide when facing difficult trade-offs and paradoxes.”

Over the past year they drafted a set of principles – the Global Business Oath - and they’ve been testing the content and implementation ever since. And now it’s ready for pledging.

While some might consider the proposal by the young global leaders a bit naïve, the bigger question is how many older, more experienced, business leaders will be signing on.  Will Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the WEF, attempt to get JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to take the Oath?  How about Deutsche Bank’s Josef Akermann?

More than 200 leaders have already pledged to lead their organizations according to these principles, according to the WEF, and over the course of 2010 “the YGL Oath Task Force will be looking to expand the reach and impact of the oath.”

A quick check of those who have already signed on indicates the list is dominated by representatives of non-profit groups or academics, though a handful of mid-level executives from big firms – such as Nestle, KKR, Ogilvy - have taken the pledge.  Mexico’s Banco Compartamos had 39 of its executives, including the CEO, take the oath.  Representatives of U.S. companies are noticeably absent.

Here’s the complete text of the Oath:

As a business leader I recognize that

• The enterprise I lead must serve the greater good by bringing together people and resources to create value that no single individual can create alone,
• My decisions can have far-reaching consequences that affect the wellbeing of individuals inside and outside my enterprise, today and tomorrow,
• As I reconcile the interests of different constituencies, I will face choices that are not easy for me and others.

So I promise that

1. I will manage my enterprise diligently and in good faith and will not let personal considerations and compensation supersede the long-term interest of my enterprise and society at large,
2. I will understand and uphold, both in letter and spirit, the laws and contracts governing my own conduct and that of my enterprise,
3. I will respect and protect the human rights and dignity of all people who are affected by my enterprise and will oppose all forms of discrimination and exploitation,
4. I will respect and protect the right of future generations to enjoy a clean and resourceful planet,
5. I will not engage in nor tolerate bribery or any other form of corruption,
6. I will represent the performance and risks of my enterprise accurately and honestly to each of the constituencies that are affected by it,
7. I will actively engage in efforts to finding solutions to critical social and environmental issues that are central to my enterprise, and
8. I will invest in my own professional development as well as the development of other managers under my supervision.

In exercising my professional duties according to these principles I recognize that my behavior must set an example of integrity and responsible conduct.

This pledge I make freely and upon my honor.

You can access The Global Business Oath on the web and , if you care to, take the pledge yourself.

Whether or not you sign on, we’d be interested in your comments, which you can post below.

If she donated $1,000 for a school to buy products, she would hit her million-dollar goal.

Mary Kantarian was achingly close to making her million-dollar sales goal — only $1,000 short. If she made the goal by the end of the year, it would mean a fat $10,000 bonus check, and a happy trip to the bank to finance a dream home she’d recently found. Other sales reps also were close, and one had already made the bonus. The books would close in just a few days, but at the end of the year her clients weren’t in a buying mood.

Still, Mary had one hope: inner-city Lincoln High School. Its students, who often had to share textbooks, could really use her company’s multimedia educational aids, but Lincoln had no discretionary budget for new teaching materials. What if Mary donated the money to this needy school for the purchase, and put herself over the magic quota?

Or perhaps she could offer partial “donations” to close sales at several schools. She would then surpass her quota goal with room to spare. The Lincoln school or other needy schools would gain immensely valuable educational programs that would help them serve their students, her company would pick up sales revenue, and she would meet her sales quota. Even better, she would earn a cool $10,000 on an investment of $1,000.

At first thought, this seemed like a win-win solution. But the idea needled Mary’s conscience. The more she thought about it, the more something about it bothered her. Yet if she didn’t close this “sale” — one which would help out disadvantaged students — she wouldn’t make that bonus, and her dream house would remain out of reach. She found herself wondering, What should she do?

Richard Burch, Adjunct Professor, Fairfield University Program
in Applied Ethics, Fairfield, Conn.

MARY SHOULD FIND BETTER WAYS to help Lincoln H.S. find the funds. Are there other corporate sponsors or community funds available? Could she pursue a school fund-raiser, or government grant? As an alternative, Mary could seek out more qualified prospects, or ask current customers to increase an order.

Trying to pull off the proposed “donation” scheme would be no easy task. Product donations usually have to be without strings. Cash gifts will buy what’s needed most, like textbooks, not multimedia aids. Also, school systems, like corporations, have formal purchasing procedures, including sign-off points in the purchase-order process that uncover kickbacks and bribes disguised as donations.

Each rep knew where the others stood. What would be their reactions when they found out Mary made her quota this way? And what if everyone did this? What would be the impact on the company, other sales people, and other schools that would want the same special consideration? And what good is a customer who next time around expects the same deal?

Aside from the possible consequences of this deal, Kant would remind us we should do the right thing for the right reason. Mary is under a moral obligation to act loyally and to protect the legitimate interests of her employer. She should act in the interests of those who depend on her, even if those interests aren’t always the same as her own.

What Actually Happened

Mary decided not to pursue offering Lincoln High School a donation. She wasn’t comfortable with the idea, and she knew that her sales manager and superiors all the way up the line would object, on both ethical and practical grounds. Mary didn’t make her bonus. But her reputation as a hard worker who maintains her integrity under pressure led to a promotion and higher pay two years later.

Shel Horowitz (shel@principledprofits.com) is author of Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, and a Hadley, Mass., consultant in marketing who initiated the Business Ethics Pledge movement; www.principledprofits.com.

By Shel Horowitz

It wasn’t a story Roger Harris relished seeing on the front page of the local paper.  As communications director for a non-profit group of hospitals that prided itself on serving charity cases, he winced as he read.  Elaine Peters, an 82-year-old living on Social Security, had seen half her monthly income vanish without her permission – garnished from her checking account by the hospital’s collection agency.

In Minnespta, debt collectors were legally permitted to dip into bank accounts without filing a lawsuit or obtaining court approval, even for medical debts.  But such collections couldn’t be made from those relying on government aid.  In this case, Peters – who was uninsured – had disputed the bill years earlier, and thought she’d settled it.  Now she was talking to a reporter.  And the attorney general.

As Harris put the paper down, he turned to memos about the AG investigation underway, plus class-action lawsuits alleging harassment.  How should the health care system respond?

Ned Barnett, CEO, Barnett Marketing Communications, former hospital PR director, Las Vegas, Nev.

Having worked for hospitals for 25 years – on management boards that dealt with these kinds of problems – I would emphasize the hospital should not have a policy of going after Social Security income.

If the collections agency made a slip-up, the hospital should write off this woman’s debt.  It could also set up a donor fund (through the hospital auxiliary) to cover such bills, and might work with local churches to help boost this fund.  The hospital could work behind the scenes to help such a person file for bankruptcy, or obtain a reverse mortgage.  It can also put a lien on her estate, so it can recover from heirs.

For a hospital settled in its community, the bad image from taking such a person’s Social Security is far more costly than any money recovered.  The fact is, hospitals write off millions.  A few more would be nothing.

In this case, business ethics and being good to people coincide.  Because hospitals save lives, they need not apologize about recovering legitimate debts, especially if the alternative is throwing the burden onto taxpayers.  But there are times (this is one) when it makes sense to bite the bullet.

What Actually Happened

Like all “What Would You Do?” cases, this one is real.  Since it appeared in the press, we’re revealing that the hospital is part of Fairview Health Services in Minneapolis.  “Elaine Peters” is Elsie Iverson, one of many Fairview charity patients alleging high-pressured collection tactics.  Iverson got her money back, while other charity patients had to go to court.  The story appeared in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Dec. 19, 2004.

Fairview spokesperson Ryan Davenport (the fictional “Roger Harris”) said the hospital welcomed the investigation – which went beyond Fairview to affect over 80 hospitals – as an opportunity to make things right.  Fairview was reviewing each case.  It had always taken steps to assure patients in need were considered for charity care: posting policies at entryways, offering sliding fees, and working to enroll needy patients in support programs.  “We have no set limit on the amount of charity care we can provide each year.  All of our patients deserve to be treated with respect and dignity,” Davenport said.  “One of our challenges is distinguishing between those who do not have the means and those who have the means and choose not to pay.”

He added, “Two-thirds of the patients who come in without insurance go away with insurance, because we’ve helped them enroll.”  He said a federal judge dismissed a class-action against Fairview, although a state court case has yet to be heard.

How much oversight does Fairview give the collection agency?  “The agency has to operate ethically and legally,” he said.  “We have a dialogue on any outstanding accounts.”  It’s not unusual for the business office to reclaim an account or write it off.  Will pre-emptive garnishment continue?  “We’ve asked the collection agency to stop that practice while we’re reviewing,” Davenport said.

Shel Horowitz (shel@principledprofits.com) is author of Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, and a Hadley, Mass., consultant in marketing who initiated the Business Ethics Pledge movement; www.principledprofits.com.

This article was originally published in the Spring 2005 edition of Business Ethics magazine.