nthood, which was outraged not only that we had informed its opponents of our decision, but espe- cially that those opponents were claiming it as a victory. Planned Parenthood issued a four-page news release accusing AT&T of "corporate cowardice" and asking its supporters to donate AT&T stock to the organization SO that it would have more influence over us. In addition, it announced that it had cancelled a $350,000 equipment contract with the company. Within days, it ran full-page national newspaper ads vilifying AT&T for caving in to the Religious Right and asking people who believed in "The Right to Choose" to Tough Calls "Hang Up on AT&T." The ads had two coupons: one to send as a protest to AT&T, the other to send money to Planned Parenthood. Within just a few weeks we received over 53,000 letters, split about equally on both sides of the issue. We also took almost 90,000 phone calls. And we got 40,000 coupons from those Planned Parenthood ads. The ads also sparked new media interest in the controversy. Sto- ries that had once run in the back of the paper moved to the front page, often with Planned Parenthood's ad as an illustration. Editorial writers and columnists jumped on the bandwagon. A Boston Globe columnist wrote that "AT&T" now stood for "Abortion, Timidity and Teeming millions more unplanned babies." Eventually, the furor wound down, although to this day AT&T occasionally receives a letter protesting that long-ago decision. The lessons live on. Corporate Responsibility Many companies thought that the big lesson here was to "shun con- troversy, avoid risks, and keep your head down." Those are not the lessons we drew from our experience. We continued to believe that corporate social responsibility is, as Drucker suggests, a matter of self- interest, but we did not see it as limited to the areas of philanthropy and community relations. It is at the center of all a company's activi- ties, and it has a broader meaning than doing good to do well. Compa- nies need to rigorously define their self-interest i