Many of us have a lot of deep contacts in Brazil, know a lot about the history of the Nestle company there. We are saddened by the report that Porter and Kramer have issued. http://www.nestle.com/NR/rdonlyres/D47B0192-15DF-4184-A8F9-823751D9D225/0/Nestle_CSR_concept_GB.pdf

For example I have personally heard testimonies on what irresponsibilities senior people in the Catholic church feel Nestle has failed to answer

This kind or reporting is so one-sided in extolling Nestle, and to imply that a social value shared methodolgy has been used to audit Nestle's compound consequences in Latin America alarms several people we know who have worked on the integrity of valuation methodologies of compound sustainability amnd Unseen Wealth for over a decade.

I guess the question is how can people from other sides of the world hold an open debate. We are quite happy to share chapter and verse on conflicts Nestle has been observed to have with society if Porter and Kramer wil detail exactly what sort of information they used and how they verified trust in any third party sources.

There's a double loop twist in the tail to there's nothing as valuable as a good theory; there's nothing more humanly destructive than a decent man over-perfecting and then over-teaching a theory that may have historically been correct but whose over-standardisation erases contextual diversity and blinds all the people at the top from seing when environmental change is waving from side to side or when someone on the outer boders of the organisation (often misleading called the bottom) recieves the first communication that the top's defensive power is compounding such agony somewhere else that it is now valueless.

There is one group of alumni who have known about the above paragraph's cautions for 30 years now. They openly question how to change economics of the big gets bigger to economics for exponential sustainability of all people. They subscribe to The Entrepreneurial Revolution trilogy that started in The Economist in 1976 and was completed in the first death of distance future history in 1984. In fact, this trology was based on 160 years of cases observed by journalists at The Economist which had been founded by Scot and Social Entrepreneur Olympian of the 1840s : James Wilson

The world's worst viruses in my view all catalogue the same way. Their consequences are externalised onto a weak, knowledgeless, or badly led (eg didctsored) community in another hemisphere the greatest risks to life that an industry sector in a first hemisphere knows most about. This terrible wave of economics of externalities brings preoductivity into disrepute and when it is constituted in to law of shareholers rights destroys the trust in any nation that has become so separated by its own vetsed interest. Unfortunatley, just at the time when the world needed the most open flows around transparency, Porter wrote a tome 1980 and 1985 on competitive startegy that proposed it is OK for large organsiations to spend their customers' and societies money on building defenesive gbarriers (ie stopping the innovations people most need, lobbying democracy's agent to stop this type of innovatiom. spending billion dollar global ad camapigns on images intended to drown out reality). This should never have been taught anyweher without worldwide questioning of what on earth will exponentially compound from such backward and divisive strategy

Let's search for some antidotes to Porter: DC Scotland Bethesda ecosaintjames MountainView London Delhi Arran Ahmedabad Lucknow Almeria Visa

In our 21st C, WE live not just in a material world but a human and natural networing : system of system of system world. Systems have a peculiar property than any graduate of mathematics is taught to respect. There is no such thing as one management method that will hep you iprove a system whatever lively gaol you set it. You can look for cluseters of systemic methods that interface with each other. In disciplianry terms, this means that any profession that separates its own business case out is a walking diosaster area becaue there is no living value sustainable through time from boxing different professions in ways that do not connect. The boundary between systems is on a netwiorked world something none of us can afford to care for every auditing cycle. failure to do this will be perfect mathematcics for ensuring no children see the 22nd centiruy. Everything you lear at harvard as a precise method can be mapped back from whether the authoirty who originated the method wholly understood mathematics as relevant to a networking future world. There are at least 10 ways in which the current accounting monopoly that has spread its laws from 10 years ago are in direct conflict with sustainining future expoentials http://exponentials.blogspot.com let us hope that 21st C MBA learn that before they pass harvard and proceed to GO.