Now that I am back in the USA, I keep thinking about the recurrent questions I received during my many media interviews and internal staff Q&A while visiting Shanghai and Beijing. I was repeatedly asked my opinion about what I thought of companies and organizations who were not donating the proper amount of money for the Sichuan earthquake victims. Having read everything I could before arriving in China, I did not really come across anything that fully prepared me for the intensity surrounding this topic. Although I had an inkling that this was simmering because a journalist alluded to it before I arrived, I did not appreciate how much attention was being paid by the Chinese people to which companies had given in earthquake assistance. In fact, company individuals were often asked to publicly disclose the amount they had given in relief and they were not sure what the right amount should be. When this topic came up, the story of the CEO of a large real estate company also surfaced. Apparently the CEO was among the first to donate money and discuss his contribution on his blog. However, many people believed that the CEO had erred by not giving enough and stained his reputation. The CEO apologized under public pressure and announced he was contributing more to the natural disaster. It seems that people were aware of a list of the top 20 company donors, multinationals and non-multinationals alike.

I can’t recall the U.S. media covering who did not give funds during Hurricane Katrina. Instead I tend to recall the companies that did the right thing, not necessarily only financially but in kind provisions and volunteerism. Obviously a very interesting difference between Eastern and Western cultures when it comes to disaster relief and understanding of what corporate responsibility means. This experience made me realize how important it is to see the world through the eyes of different cultures and to recognize the power of civil society upon corporate behavior. The pressure from employees and the community were dramatically driving corporate giving.

I was also asked twice in Beijing what would happen if an earthquake occurred during the Olympics in August. This question reminded me of how I felt after the terrorist attack on in New York on September 11th which I witnessed up close. After 9-11, barely a day went by for nearly two years that I did not think that another attack was imminent in New York. For that very reason, I did not regard the question as strange although now that several years have passed, I do not think about it constantly. In response to that question, I believe that the Chinese government is as prepared as any country and learned a lot over the past six months to effectively handle such a crisis if it should strike. Hopefully the Olympics will be smooth sailing and triumphant for all.

Thought I should report on some analysis we did with Planet2050, Weber Shandwick’s corporate responsibility and sustainability arm led by my friend Brendan May. As you know, annual reports often begin with a Letter from the CEO and/or Chairman to company stakeholders. When it comes time to learning about companies, I always read the CEO Letter since it encapsulates what is on the minds of company leadership and the business environment overall. These Letters always contain some clue as to what might is important in terms of company priorities.

Since corporate responsibility is increasingly in the news, it seemed that we could determine how permanent corporate responsibility really was from reading Letters to Shareholders. It would be interesting to discover whether the world’s largest company CEOs were acknowledging corporate responsibility initiatives now vs. several years ago. To just underscore the growing importance of sustainability in shaping corporate reputations today, think about this week’s announcement that KKR, the private equity leveraged buy-out firm, is teaming with Environmental Defense Fund to incorporate sustainability measures into its business operations and practices. This action is a continuation of KKR’s smart efforts to listen carefully to environmentalists as it did when it bought Texas utility TXU last year and reduced the number of coal-burning plants to minimize environmental harm.

Back to the Shareholder Letters, what did we find?

• Corporate responsibility mentions in CEO Letters to Shareholders increased 18 percent from 2003 to 2007.  I agree with Brendan when he said, “Clearly, CEOs in the second half of this decade have embraced corporate responsibility as a critical driver of business strategy and reputation-building.”
• Interestingly, broad environmental issues were the most frequently mentioned corporate responsibility initiatives mentioned back in 2003 CEO Letters to Shareholders. In 2007, energy efficiency and carbon emissions were the most common corporate responsibility agenda initiatives. Volunteerism, a topic featured in 2003 CEO annual report Letters, appeared less frequently in 2007.

When I used to review the findings from the Fortune Most Admired Companies survey a decade ago, I would be distressed that corporate responsibility was always the least important factor in driving corporate reputation.  Now we see that is permanently on the CEO agenda. That’s a good thing.