September 2009 Archives

When a company intends to be green and it claims its product to be eco-friendly and markets it to hyper-vigilant green customers, the company needs to be hyper-vigilant about its claims.  Transparency is critical.  The promises to the customers must come first.  It can't be business as usual. 

The CEO of SIGG, a popular water bottle company, recently came to that conclusion, after making a mistake, admitting it, and issuing an apology.

SIGG bottles are made of aluminum with an inner lining containing a chemical called BPA.  But SIGG claimed that the lining had a 0.00% percent leaching rate, so customers were safe.  When questions about this claim arose, CEO Steve Wasik issued a letter that in retrospect he concluded was misleading and half-hearted.  He followed up with this:

Dear SIGG Customer,

Last month, I wrote a letter to try and provide you with as much factual and historical information as I could in regards to the evolution of the SIGG bottle liner. I also suggested that people could email me if they had any questions and comments.

After reading and responding to hundreds of emails and viewing nearly as many blog & Twitter posts, I realize that my first letter may have missed the mark. What I should have said simply and loudly to all of our loyal SIGG fans is: I am sorry that we did not make our communications on the original SIGG liner more clear from the very beginning.

I have learned much over the past 2 weeks. I learned that many of you purchased SIGG bottles - not just because they were free from leaching and safe - but because you believed that SIGGs contained no BPA. I learned that, although SIGG never marketed the former liner as "BPA Free" we should have done a better job of both clearly communicating about our liner as well as policing others who may have misunderstood the SIGG message.

For over 100 years, SIGG has earned a reputation for quality products and service - and we do not take that for granted. From the day we made our announcement last month, we made a commitment consistent with SIGG values that we would offer anyone who is concerned about BPA an opportunity to swap their old SIGGs for new SIGGs with the new EcoCare liner. Today, I am announcing that this voluntary Exchange Program will be in place until October 31, 2009 to ensure that our customers have ample time to send their former liner bottles back to us should they choose to do so.

Once again, I truly apologize for the lack of clarity in our previous communications. All of us at SIGG hope that we will have an opportunity to regain your confidence and trust.

Wasik signed the letter with his email address.

In a subsequent statement published in the Huffington Post, Wasik expanded on the incident and redoubled his apology.  This is an edited version of that statement. 

I am writing to apologize.

As Chief Executive Officer of SIGG, a leading maker of reusable water bottles, I made a mistake when I decided not to announce that our old bottle liner contained trace amounts of bisphenol A. I learned about the liner's content in 2006, when there was debate in the scientific community about the effects of BPA. Scientists lined up on both sides of the issue: Some said BPA posed potential health risks, others said BPA was perfectly safe.

Today, the debate continues. Scientists are still split on the issue. But the consumer environment has changed. Because of the all the conflicting data, a growing number of people have decided to eliminate the concern from their lives by avoiding BPA. Given the situation, I recently decided that we had to tell everyone that bottles manufactured with our former liner (prior to August 2008) contained trace amounts of BPA.

We were right to make the announcement. But I was wrong to have waited this long. One of our primary goals at SIGG has been to help reduce unnecessary waste and to educate people on the environmental benefits of using a reusable bottle. With that objective in mind, SIGG has been labeled a "green" company.

Unfortunately, I am still learning to be a green CEO. When I took this position, I naively assumed that "green" meant being a steward of the environment.  Some executives learn this because they have grown up within the green movement. I have learned this by reading hundreds of emails from SIGG consumers. Some feel angry. Some feel betrayed. All feel disappointed because they were passionate advocates of our bottles.

People have written to explain why they are concerned about BPA. They have written about their personal stories, their intimate worries and their very honest anger. I have personally responded to hundreds of these notes, apologizing for my mistake, offering new bottles to make amends, realizing that my decision caused people real discomfort.

In the next few days, we will announce the first steps in our path to full transparency. These will include some very specific things we will do to make sure we are the honest, green company that our customers expect us to be. We will:

·         Post details about the contents of our bottles: the new liner, the cap, the bottle itself. And we will make the information as transparent and understandable as possible.

·         Make it easy for consumers to exchange their old bottles for new, BPA-free SIGGs. You can still ship your old SIGGs to us via our voluntary exchange program. Or if you prefer to avoid shipping costs and lead time, you can make the exchange at your local SIGG retailer, most of whom are participating in the program. To make it easy, we will post on our website a list of these retailers.

·         Unveil an independently managed grant program to help fund BPA and chemical research that will help eliminate confusion and concern about this issue. While we have moved away from BPA in SIGG products, it continues to be used in countless products that we all use each day. If it poses a real threat, we want to help curb its use.

When people buy "Swiss made" products, they are buying quality and peace of mind. I realize that my actions compromised SIGG's relationship with our loyal customers. I pledge to try to rebuild the hard-earned trust you have had in SIGG. I sincerely hope you will allow me to prove myself.

Analysis

Wasik's humility is palpable.  He specifies what SIGG did wrong.  He communicates that he understands his mistake.  He apologizes cleanly, personally and on behalf of the company he represents.  By way of restitution, he offers to replace old bottles with new ones.  He promises to learn from the incident and not to repeat the offense.  This is a model of an effective "green" apology, one that demonstrates that the real environmental issues recycle trust and transparency. 

Evaluation:

Recognition:  A

Responsibility:  A

Remorse:  A

Restitution: A

Repetition:  A

Overall Score:  A  

American political, sports, and entertainment leaders always do the right thing.  After they have tried everything else.  Big week for apologies.  Let's get started.  

Joe Wilson

The House of Representatives officially rebuked Republican Joe Wilson for shouting "You lie!" in the middle of President Obama's health care address to a joint session of Congress.  Although Wilson begrudgingly apologized to the president, Obama accepted it.  Wilson said that apology was enough.

It was not.  In addition to offending the president, the South Carolina lawmaker's "breach of decorum"  was an offense to his colleagues.  The resolution, which states that the House "disapproves" of his behavior, passed 240-179, largely along party lines. Seven Republicans broke with their leadership to support it; 12 Democrats were opposed.

One of the goals of apology is for a society to reaffirm that it pays more than lip service to the values and principles it espouses.  Insisting on an apology from a member of the community who violates those values and principles does that.  For an offender, an apology serves to reaffirm the fact that despite evidence to the contrary, the offender really does honor those values and principles. 

It would have been better for Joe Wilson to acknowledge that he was in the wrong not only with respect to the president, but to his House colleagues.  I drafted this apology for his consideration.  Joe, it's still not too late.  It's never too late to perfect an apology. 

 By my actions during the President's joint address to Congress, I violated a number of values that are important to me.  I was rude to a guest. For a representative of a people known throughout the nation for its traditions of hospitality, to be rude to a guest is simply dishonorable.  On that point, I am duly chastened and apologize.  There can be no excuse for such conduct and I offer none.  I have already apologized to the president, and he has graciously accepted my apology.  My conduct also violated the rules and traditions of Congress.  To my colleagues, I apologize for the disrepute my outburst has brought on this great body.   And finally to my constituents and the American public, I am sorry that my intemperate behavior has caused you to doubt my commitment to the principles of respect and civility.  I pledge to visit every school in my district to help reaffirm the importance of civility, courtesy, and respectful listening, and in this way and by my actions going forward, I hope to repair the damage I have done. 

Serena Williams

Tennis player Serena Williams targeted a tennis linesperson with verbal abuse after a disputed call.  At first she refused to apologize.  In due course, she issued the following apology on her web site.

Hey guys!!!

I want to amend my press statement of yesterday, and want to make it clear as possible - I want to sincerely apologize FIRST to the lines woman, Kim Clijsters, the USTA, and tennis fans everywhere for my inappropriate outburst.  I'm a woman of great pride, faith and integrity, and I admit when I'm wrong.

I need to make it clear to all young people that I handled myself inappropriately and it's not the way to act -- win or lose, good call or bad call in any sport, in any manner.

I like to lead by example. We all learn from experiences both good and bad.  I will learn and grow from this, and be a better person as a result.

Xxxx,

S

It's a fair apology but it should have been delivered in person.  As part of her restitution, Williams was fined $10,500. 

Kanye West

In a very bizarre incident at the MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, Kanye West hijacked fellow singer Taylor Swift's acceptance speech.  Although less than articulate, West was very clearly repentant on an appearance on Jay Leno's new talk show (video here).

I immediately knew in this situation that it was wrong.  And it wasn't a spectacle, you know. It was actually someone's emotions, you know, that I stepped on and it was very, it was just, it was rude, period . . .  Obviously, you know, I deal with hurt and, you know, so many, you know, celebrities, they never take the time off, and I've never taken the time off to really, you know, I just, music after music and tour after tour on tour, and I'm just ashamed that my hurt caused someone else's hurt.

Way too much defensiveness for my taste, although I do like the phrase "it was just rude, period."  Still, he needed to apologize directly to the person he hurt.  West did that the next day, according to news reports.

The takeaway:  it's best to get the apology right the first time.  Playing catch-up is difficult and often impossible. 

Like millions of Americans listening to President Obama's healthcare reform speech to a joint session of Congress, I was dismayed by  the outburst from someone on the Republican aisle of the House.  The nation heard a voice yell out "You lie!" when the president was explaining that the provision of his health care reform would not be available to undocumented immigrants. 

News reports immediately identified the author of the outburst as South Carolina representative Joe Wilson.

Wilson issued a written apology and then telephoned the White House to  repeat the apology.  This was Wilson's apology:

This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill.  While I disagree with the president's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.

Readers of my book have reached out to me to ask what I thought of this apology.

Not much.  It's good enough for President Obama, who wisely and graciously accepted it.  Here's a video of the president's accepting the apology. 

But from the standpoint of an apology that works to redeem Rep. Wilson, this apology is too reserved and careful for my taste. 

First of all, news reports suggest that Wilson's apology was not a spontaneous gesture but was coerced by Republican leadership.  It sounds begrudging. 

There is way too much rationalizing in this apology.  The reference to his emotions is an excuse.  It's no different than someone starting an apology like, "This evening I allowed alcohol to get the best of me . . ." 

I do appreciate that Wilson clearly specifies what he's apologizing for--lack of civility.

Wilson's apology would have been better served had he also mentioned his discourtesy to the president.  The president was a guest in the Congressional chamber.  Is this the way a member from the South, where hospitality is such a tradition, treats a guest?

An effective apology also allows the offender to reaffirm the importance of values that he or she violated. In this case, Wilson's apology should have included a line such as, "the decorum of this Body is important to me. Hospitality to guests in this body is important to me.  I'm sorry that my intemperate outburst gave anyone reason to doubt my commitment to these values."

Because he failed to apologize to his colleagues, WIlson is being threatend with formal resolution of censure or disapproval.  What do his colleagues want?  a formal apology from the House floor.  

 Where's the Restitution?

Wilson also ignores two critical parts of every effective apology: the restitution and the promise not to repeat the offending behavior. 

Let's start with the easier one.  Wilson's apology would have been much stronger had he ended it with something like, "I've learned my lesson.  In the future my colleagues can expect me to honor the decorum of this body." 

The restitution step is much harder.  But it's important that Wilson signal his realization of how damaging his outburst was by committing to do something constructive.  There are a range of activities he can take on, but they all need to demonstrate a sacrificial or humbling posture. 

Wilson could invite the President to his home for a beer.  There's precedent for that.  He could make a donation to a charity.  He could speak to students in South Carolina schools about the importance of respectful listening.  He could donate a book on effective apology to every school library in the state.  (I have a recommendation for a title.) The important thing is that he needs to be seen doing something of a sacrificial or humbling nature. 

As it is, while the president has accepted his apology, most people are still very angry with Wilson. 

One sign of that anger is that Wilson's Democratic opponent Rob Miller has raised more than $750,000 in grassroots contributions since the outburst. 

(Controversy apparently works both ways.  Wilson has been able to use this incident to bolster his own fundraising.)  

What do you think of Wilson's apology?  If you were advising Wilson, should he have apologized and, if so, what should his apology have been? 

THE SOUND OF MUSIC