Also, the issue of age has been raised because Barack Obama, 47 years old, will run against John McCain, age 72. Each qualified, yet a full generation apart.

In 1936, post depression and pre-WWII, John McCain grew up in a time of rebuilding. Americans were optimistic, trusting and believed in politicians; authority was rarely questioned.

Twenty-five years later, Barack Obama was born into an America that had begun to question officials and take a personal interest in governing. It was an unsettling time; pre-Viet Nam and pre-Civil Rights. His generation was raised to ask questions and challenge authority.

Today, times are different for both candidates. Today the world is moving at a rapid pace. Issues are so different from any other time. Terrorism right here at home, technological advancements, scientific breakthroughs, social issues and environmental focus as never before.

It definitely opens dialogue and bears asking the question, generationally speaking, who will be better for America?

The same thinking applies to the business environment on the whole. Larger corporations are being run by older, seasoned, talented CEOs who lead their businesses based on the interests of shareholders first and everything else second.

According to Sanford M. Jacoby, satisfying shareholders can ruin a company. In his Chicago Tribune article, he speaks to the failures of GM in Detroit and how an emphasis on shareholder profits has taken focus off quality and design resulting in loss of market to competitors such as Toyota.

From 1996 through 2000, GM distributed $20 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and share buybacks. Money that would have had a greater impact on the sustainability of the company and its stakeholders had they channeled it back into the company in the form of research and development.

Mr. Jacoby calls it “the siren call of the era: Satisfying the Shareholder. Increased profits to shareholders has meant little return to R&D, engineering and overall operations.

To be fair, the business environment today has changed and some CEOs are changing with it. However, a key word here is “change”.

CEOs of the future – those being educated, mentored and groomed right now – will not have to change. They will not need to adapt to a business environment that is socially responsible, one that puts the interests of their employees before profit, one that cares about the environment over margin – they will not need to change. Theirs is a generation that places value on sustainability and socially responsible practices. They were raised with the idea that if action wasn’t taken immediately, the world, the environment, the Earth, would not survive.

According to an historical timeline of municipal solid waste management on the United States EPA’s website (www.epa.gov), Milestones in Garbage, at least 25 states have had a version of a recycling law in place since 1975. So a business leader born in 1975 (age 33 now) or later was raised in a world of recycling. The idea of recycling is not new or was not a learned task.

In boardrooms across the nation, regardless of generation and age, CEOs must take action for sustainability now and put the issues of environment, human rights, human resources, fair trade and global consciousness first.

In fact it is not unthinkable that the new generation of CEOs will blame the older generation for the status of the world, plagued with global warming, famine, civil wars and greed.

Remember when Gordon Gekko announced in the 1985 movie, Wall Street, that “greed is good.”? Scores of young and old business leaders from Wall Street to Madison Avenue snickered and sneered at the idea. Now, nearly 23 years later, that idea is unconscionable. Think Enron.

Tomorrow’s CEOs, the up and coming generation, although more innately qualified to support sustainability will have challenges of their own to face. Known as Generation X’ers, the “slacker” generation, they are a generation of limited attention span and must remain consistent and resilient in their efforts to maintain their goals.

On the website www.personneltoday.com, Graham Wallace, CEO of Merryck & Co., a CEO mentoring firm, answered a series of questions about the leadership skills of up and coming younger CEOs. One of the questions specifically addressed future challenges facing CEOs and his answer specifically cited the environment.

Excerpt from http://www.personneltoday.com/blogs/workplace-advice/2007/09/leadershipmentoringtraining-th.html :

Q. What do you predict the future challenges will be for leading CEOs?
A. We are seeing environmental issues move rapidly up the agenda, affecting businesses at every level. The public, shareholders and staff all have an interest in the environmental impact of an organization and can expect chief executives to take action, both on a company and personal level – witness Stuart Rose of M&S trading in his Bentley for a hydrogen powered BMW.
In the future I believe we shall see a dramatic increase in the degree of environmental consciousness businesses are expected to have, coupled with the pressure of having to compete with international rivals from countries where climate change is much lower down the agenda.

Whether old or young, veteran or rookie, business leaders need to recognize that issues relating to sustainability and socially responsible practices must happen now. Older leaders need to implement plans of action that call for change immediately. Younger leaders need to lead from day one with the idea that protecting the world is top priority and make subsequent decisions based on that.

Therefore, the idea of which generation is more qualified does not come down to merely age. The CEO that recognizes and addresses environmental issues, focuses on people over profit and genuinely believes in sustainability of the world is the one who will make us all winners.

Forrester CMO Guide

However, there was a time that an Open Door Policy wasn’t a part of all corporate Human Resources structures and as the concept was being developed, so, too, was the definition. For example, today, we know an Open Door Policy exists to increase communication between employee and company without fear of consequence. Company specifics of an Open Door Policy vary from corporation to corporation - but these days; at least, if you say Open Door Policy, most people know what you are talking about.

Corporate Social Responsibility and its meaning are now in the development stage. Companies are instituting CSR policies while working through the definition and impact to their business’ bottom line.

So then, what is the definition of Corporate Social Responsibility?

I’ve discovered several definitions provided by companies and organizations instituting socially responsible business practices; companies that have an eye on and a vested interest in the future. Most of these definitions are located on company websites, right next to Mission Statements and other corporate governing policies.

The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, as part of a Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, provides this definition:
We define corporate social responsibility strategically. Corporate social responsibility encompasses not only what companies do with their profits, but also how they make them. It goes beyond philanthropy and compliance and addresses how companies manage their economic, social, and environmental impacts, as well as their relationships in all key spheres of influence: the workplace, the marketplace, the supply chain, the community, and the public policy realm.

World Bank defines Corporate Social Responsibility:
Corporate social responsibility is the commitment of businesses to contribute to sustainable economic development by working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their lives in ways that are good for business and for development.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development provides this definition:
Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large.

Finally this definition was found in the dictionary of sustainability management (www.wiserearth.org):
A business outlook that acknowledges responsibilities to stakeholders not traditionally accepted, including suppliers, customers, and employees as well as local and international communities in which it operates and the natural environment.

These definitions, although very similar, possess slightly varying points of view. Common among all, however, are the ideals of positive impact, sustainability and an overall bottom line impact to society, the environment and belief in measuring the success of a business by more than just dollars and cents.

Unlike previously-newer business terminology, this is the first defined corporate declaration that offers hope and plays a role in maintaining, bettering and preserving our world.

Most definitions speak in terms of employees and their families. The fact that employees and their families are a consideration when creating company corporate policy is a huge leap from the days of long work weeks, tied to a desk, working tirelessly and thanklessly for the greater good of a company (am I really remembering those days or have I been watching them played out in the Golden Globe-winning, Emmy-nominated TV series on AMC, Mad Men?).

The word environment appears over and over. Again, committing to environmentally friendly business practices is a huge step in the right – very right – direction. Large corporations for years have been targeted by environmental groups for non-sustainable practices. Today, it’s encouraging that clearly - and in black and white – these same companies are stating that they will make environmentally conscious decisions because they, too, believe in the future of the world and share a responsibility to protect it.

I agree with all the definitions I’ve read. I am encouraged by their positive messages. I am encouraged that those with the ability and resources to make a better world are doing it.

To those definitions, I would add another. Corporate Social Responsibility is:
Corporate governance making business decisions based on responsibility and consequence for their direct and indirect business practices. Company policies developed with consideration for stakeholders/shareholders; associates and their families; communities both local and worldwide; environmental impact in the present day and for the future and hope and accountability for the overall sustainability of the world.