Reimagining CSR

Creating Shared Value – Tips for Making the Case in Your Company

2011-11-03T02:57:00.000-04:00

Several weeks ago, I had the opportunity to present as part of an FSG webinar entitled Creating Shared Value: Making the Case in Your Company. As I mentioned yesterday, we have worked closely with FSG over the past year and a half to develop our CSR strategy. During this time, FSG was developing the concept of Creating Shared Value (CSV). Whether you see this as the next point along the continuum of CSR or a distinct, new idea is probably a conversation for another day, but regardless, I love the way Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, and the FSG team in general, have framed this concept, and I think it is absolutely the right way to think about CSR (or whatever you want to call it). If you aren’t familiar with the concept of CSV, stop reading this post right now and read this instead.

The purpose of the webinar was to go beyond the “what” of CSV, to focus on the “how”. Specifically, how to you make the case for CSV to your company, well outside the walls of the CSR department? How do you build buy-in and embed this approach throughout your business units? For years, as corporate philanthropy became strategic corporate philanthropy and then CSR, the group that works on social issues has had to become decreasingly siloed in order to succeed. A well-run CSR department collaborates closely with other business units, addresses issues of importance to the rest of the company, and may have a matrixed org chart. With CSV, though, active participation from other business units isn’t just about doing the job well – it’s about doing it at all. CSV doesn’t happen within a department, it’s embedded in a company. That means that, in order to be successful, the CSR team simply must succeed in making the case for CSV to the rest of the company. FSG put together this webinar to share insights from companies that have been making that effort; I thought it might be useful to share and flesh out the key points from my presentation here.

Overall, there are two big things I think we’ve done since the beginning, which have been critical to what successes we’ve had in making the case. One, we’ve focused on engaging senior leaders. We engaged a wide range of senior executives (34 internal interviews) during the strategy development phase, and our CEO was the primary customer for our proposed strategy. We sought to understand their strategies and needs, so that we could identify the key issues within their areas of responsibility that could benefit from a CSV approach. We’ve worked with business unit heads to flesh out and implement the CSR pillars most aligned with their particular groups, with the goal of co-creating our activities. Two, we treat our company’s executives as our clients. We seek to build relationships, we lead with the fit between our work and theirs, and we strive to act as a service organization to other business units.

What does that mean in practice? Here’s my top-ten list for making the case for CSV:

1. Appoint a high-ranking executive to lead your CSR group: We have found it critical to develop close relationships with our business unit heads, so that we can be a trusted partner. Having a CSR leader who is a peer to those executives has been so important in building those relationships.

2. Invest time in making the case; it’s an iterative process: We’ve had three CEOs (one left, we had an interim, now we have a permanent one) since we started this process, so for turnover reasons alone, you can’t assume your job is ever done in bringing leadership on board. Furthermore, we’ve found that business unit heads are more or less engaged depending on what else is going on in their business, so you have to continually track their needs and objectives, understand how you can support that, and tell them. I think that selling the value of the CSV strategy, rather than just the value a CSV initiative, might be a good way to address this – if you buy into the principle, that won’t change as individual projects become more or less relevant. However, it’s harder to get time on someone’s calendar to talk about a business strategy than it is to discuss a concrete initiative, so I haven’t yet figured out how to strike the right balance on this one.

3. Work to understand deeply what your business units do and need: If you are going to help your colleagues to address social issues that could maximize or limit their business success, you have to really and truly understand what your colleagues do and what their problems are. That sounds obvious, but it’s harder than it sounds. We need a real general management skill set and we also need to be a continual student of our organization and our industry. (If you have tactics for succeeding in this ongoing education, I would love to hear them.)

4. Focus on what is important to your business units, not you: If you work in a CSR group, you presumably care about your company’s social impact. That’s integral to CSV, which seeks to address issues that are important to both society and the business. However, that’s not what most business unit leaders are charged with doing. They’re charged with addressing just the business unit side of that Venn diagram. The social impact is nice, but not necessary. That shouldn’t be a problem for you, though – if you’re really engaging in CSV, you are addressing an issue that is of core importance to your business. The social impact is why your group is involved, but it probably isn’t why the company is involved. As such, sell your business unit colleagues on the part that will help them to achieve their goals. If you are picking the right issues, not selling your colleagues on the social impact won’t make the social impact any less powerful. (I should note that this is a little different at my company – because we are an education company, we have the benefit of working with people who ARE charged with driving social impact, in our case educational achievement. The fact that we have to focus on the piece of the puzzle that is most important to our business units remains, though.)

5. Make your colleagues’ lives easier; consider focusing on under-resourced units: We’ve found that business units that don’t have sufficient support in areas where we can add value, like R&D, marketing, relationship-development, and business development, are really eager to work with us, and they move straight to integrating us into their work.

6. Be comfortable acting both strategically and tactically – both have their place: We’ve generally found it easier to position ourselves as a partner through tactical initiatives, rather than strategic initiatives. We can often make an introduction, or draw media attention to a business activity, and those are great, but they aren’t creating shared value. That said, I think this is an appropriate interim stem for a company that is new to CSV. These small, lower-impact activities are helping to position our group within the company, helping other units understand who we are and how we can engage with them, and helping us to build the relationships we need to create shared value successfully.

7. Tell the CSV story coherently, frequently, and throughout the company: I think we’ve had the perspective that we’ll start telling our story when our strategy is fully in place, but celebrating success is key to building buy-in, to helping people understand what you are about, so I think it’s important to celebrate the small landmarks along the way.

8. Focus on the good, not the perfect, to go after quick wins: For the same reason, go after quick wins; find examples that you can celebrate in order to educate the company about CSV.

9. Be clear that you are a change agent, not program manager, from the start: This is a distinction that FSG draws in its report, sponsored by HP, "Creating Shared Value: A How-to Guide for the New Corporate (R)evolution", and it is one of the elements of CSV that I struggle with most. With CSV, you aren’t carrying out CSR activities but are instead changing the way your company does business. You aren’t developing projects that the CSR department will run on an ongoing basis – you’ll have done your job when they just become part of how the company does business. But that also means that, when you identify an opportunity, you can’t just do it – you have to convince whole group of other people, with other objectives and ways of operating, to get onboard, and I think that’s really, really hard.

10. Develop a strong network within your company: There’s obviously a common theme running throughout this post – to implement CSV, you must work through your colleagues throughout the company. But unless you are very lucky, those colleagues probably aren’t seeking you out. As such, you need to figure out which of your colleagues you can help the most, and you need relationships in place to be able to work with them. You also need to understand the twists and turns that you company is facing and adapting to on an ongoing basis. That means you need a strong network within your company, so you can figure out what is going on, who is doing what, and where you might fit in.

These tips are based on our challenges to date as much as on our successes – this isn’t easy work. But I think Porter and Kramer are right about CSV – it does drive business success, it does drive social outcomes, and it is the right approach. It just makes so much sense that I’m confident we’ll see more and more companies Creating Shared Value.

Welcome Back!

2011-11-02T02:52:00.000-04:00

Welcome back to Reimagining CSR! This isn’t the first time I’ve said that, but things have changed a bit around here, and I’m finding myself very much in need of this space to work out my ideas about CSR. I hope those changes will also make this blog more useful to you.

A little over a year ago, I joined the brand-new CSR department at a large education company. There were just two of us to start, and then for awhile I was the only employee in the group, but we also worked very closely with a consulting team from FSG. For the first half of 2010, when I was working with my now-employer as an independent consultant while finishing up a fellowship, we focused on the big blocks of strategy: identifying the key social issues that impact our business, figuring out which departments we would be collaborating with, laying out the core pillars of our CSR strategy. I joined the company full-time in summer 2010, and we started working to bring that 30,000 foot picture down to about 10,000 feet – we weren’t implementing, for the most part, but we were exploring partnerships, developing pilot projects, and otherwise figuring out how we were going to bring that big picture strategy to life. In early 2011, we hired an SVP to run the group (hooray for having a senior leader for the CSR team!), and we really started building our team’s infrastructure. We figured out what kind of team we needed to implement our strategy, we fleshed out the budget, and we started to develop the processes we needed to work effectively as a department. Then finally, starting around late spring, we staffed up and really started implementing. We are absolutely, 100% still a work in progress, but what started out as a giant PowerPoint deck a little over a year ago is slowly but surely coming to life.

What does this have to do with Reimagining CSR? When I started this blog, I was in the last semester of my MBA, and I used it to refine my ideas about what CSR could and should be. I’d previously been a corporate philanthropy consultant at Changing Our World, an intern with the MAC AIDS Fund (the foundation at MAC Cosmetics, part of Estee Lauder), and the corporate philanthropy editor at onPhilanthropy.com. While I was still blogging regularly, I started doing research on CSR for Jane Nelson at the Harvard Kennedy School’s CSR Initiative. I’d also been a student of the subject matter, taking one business school class specifically on CSR and several others that touched on the issue. I’d approached CSR (mostly strategic corporate philanthropy, but other aspects as well) from a range of angles, except one big one: that of a day-in, day-out full-time CSR manager in a company’s CSR department. I learned a massive amount in those other roles – particularly consulting, where I had the chance to work with the CSR groups at a number of companies and to research and profile hundreds more – and they prompted me to mull over questions and offer opinions about the big picture of CSR, of CSR an ideal.

This job is different. Now, for better or for worse, I don’t spend three months perfecting an ideal strategy, distill it into a beautifully formatted report, and then hand it over. Instead, that nice, big PowerPoint is where my job begins. That leads me to think about a really different set of issues – issues of implementation, issues of structure. I’ll probably still mull the ideal – that’s just my nature – but I’ll spend more time wondering about the balance between ideal and reality, about the tactical how-tos of getting even a little bit close to perfect. Some of my questions are probably common in any business unit – how do I get the business units that I work with to care about my objectives? How do I get senior management involved in the issues that matter to my team? Others are pretty similar to the issues I addressed when I first started this blog – for instance, now that I’m not regularly researching and profiling best practices in CSR, I find myself feeling out of touch, so I’ll use this blog to profile interesting practices and people.

As always, this blog is part personal learning journal, but I also hope it will be helpful to other people. If there are issues you want to analyze, practices you want to learn more about, people you want to see highlighted, please don’t hesitate to email me at reimaginingcsr@gmail.com.

Less blog-related, but the other change around here is that I got married and changed my name – I’m now Jessica Hubbard, instead of Jessica Stannard-Friel. Simpler, right? At least, once I figure out all of the million places I need to change it – they seem to be multiplying daily…

By the way, I’m writing this from a plane as I fly out to the BSR conference. I plan to tweet extensively – you can follow at @JessSF. If you’re there, too, let me know.

Thanks so much for joining me as I jump back into blogging!

Join Me in Exploring the BCCCC Conference!

2011-04-11T00:08:00.000-04:00

Welcome back to ReimaginingCSR! It's been far too long since I last posted. Since then, I've moved into an in-house CSR role, as a Senior Manager in the brand-new CSR department at an education company. I joined the company as a consultant when it started working on its CSR strategy last February and then came on full-time when it created a CSR department over the summer. It's been a very exciting process, and it has also exposed me to all sorts of new challenges and ideas that I hope to explore by getting back to blogging.

My impetus for restarting this blog today is that I'm currently sitting in a hotel room in Minneapolis, where I am attending the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship conference. I just got back from the opening reception and dinner, where I very much enjoyed talking about CSR theory and practice with people who really get it! Tomorrow, I am excited to attend a range of great sessions - you can see the agenda here (breakout sessions in detail here). At the moment, I'm leaning toward attending the following panels:

Make the Connection: Play the Role of Corporate Citizenship Change Agent (with panelists from ARAMARK, Himle Horner Inc., Wells Fargo, and Net Impact) - My colleagues and I are really interested in the role our team can play in helping the company through the major changes happening in our industry, so I hope this session will help me think through that opportunity.
From Volunteering to Involve-a-teering (with panelists from the Center for Corporate Citizenship, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, and PwC) - I am leading the build-out of our volunteerism program, which will focus on skills-based volunteerism. I am very interested in how we can think not just about employees volunteering their time, but also about the company volunteering its employees' expertise. I am also interested in how we can use volunteerism to foster employee learning and professional development. I hope this session will help me explore these issues.

Throughout the conference, I plan to tweet (@JessSF) and blog. I want this communication to be as helpful as possible to those of you who aren't able to be here in person. I'd therefore love to hear your thoughts on the sessions above. What questions do you have on those topics? What issues within them do you want to explore?

Thank you so much for joining me as I jump back into blogging and for working through these critical issues in our field together. I am thrilled to be re-starting our conversation!

6 Questions with CECP Director Margaret Coady

2010-05-11T23:33:00.000-04:00

After a long lull, I’m very excited to be getting back to posting on Reimagining CSR. I’m especially excited to introduce a new feature, entitled “6 Questions with…” On a periodic basis, I’ll be sitting down with (ok, probably emailing with) intriguing people in the world of CSR. We’ll have the opportunity to learn about their career paths and their day-to-day experiences as CSR professionals, their insights into trends and challenges in the field, and the interesting activities with which they’re currently involved.

I hope to capture the diversity of this field by interviewing people in a range of positions – working in-house at companies, at consulting firms, at industry associations, and at nonprofits; in corporate philanthropy, in socially-responsible business, in cause marketing, and in environmental roles; who spend their days thinking about the supply chain, about financials, about key stakeholders, or about compliance; and the many other niches that make up the world of CSR. If there’s anyone in particular that you would like to see featured, please email me at reimaginingcsr (at) gmail (dot) com. I know that this blog tends to be a bit skewed towards corporate philanthropy, as that’s where the bulk of my experience and network lie, so I would particularly appreciate requests for or recommendations of professionals in other areas of CSR.

We’ll be starting this feature by talking with Margaret Coady, the Director of the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy, which bills itself as “A network of global CEOs committed to corporate philanthropy.” I first met Margaret when I was a corporate philanthropy consultant at Changing Our World, and she was a wealth of information about whatever facet of the sector we happened to be researching on a given day. Margaret and I kept in touch when we both started business school (she while continuing to work full time!), bonding over our shared experience learning all about cranberries. (Did you know they bounce?) Margaret sits in a fascinating place in this world, with visibility into the work of many of the country’s top corporate philanthropists – and increasingly, as the organization expands globally, the world’s. She was kind enough to share that view with us here at Reimagining CSR.

Jessica: How did your career and life experiences lead you to the field of corporate social responsibility and to your current position?

Margaret: I began my career as an information technology consultant with PricewaterhouseCoopers, immediately followed by two years as a technology product manager at an Internet start-up in San Francisco (the first year epitomized the spirit of dot-com invincibility; in the second year, everything came somewhat unhinged). Missing the cultural life of NYC, I moved east and became the Assistant Director of a prominent mid-town art gallery. That was a great experience (my friends have heard plenty of behind-the-scenes stories), but I wanted to get back to a career with more of a corporate twist.

Although CECP is a nonprofit, our membership consists of over 150 leading corporate CEOs and we also work closely with the senior giving professionals at those companies. My first role at CECP was as the Research Specialist, charged with growing our proprietary Corporate Giving Standard benchmarking system, which now contains over $60 billion in detailed giving data. This challenge put my IT, sales, marketing, and product strategy skills to great use (as well as my undergraduate liberal arts degree). I was promoted to CECP’s Director, under Charlie Moore, within a few years. In 2009, I graduated as valedictorian of the Executive MBA program at Columbia Business School; the learning from those courses has been worth its weight in gold in my new strategic role.

Jessica: What do you do all day?

Margaret: In addition to day-to-day management, the short answer is that I draft the strategic course for CECP’s research publications, events, and programs. After all, CECP is only relevant if our work fills the immediate unmet needs of our member companies. Yet it is important for CECP to keep an eye on the horizon, too, since it is a luxury for companies to look too far into the future given increasing pressures on their time.

Recent projects of mine include: crafting a definition and dollar valuation for pro bono service (with our partners at the Taproot Foundation); working alongside the U.N. Global Compact to draft Principles of Responsible Social Investment (to be announced this summer by the Secretary General); shaping the content agenda for CECP’s newsletter, The Corporate Philanthropist, and our CEO conference series; writing the latest edition of CECP’s benchmarking report, Giving in Numbers, and managing the selection process for CECP’s Excellence Awards in Corporate Philanthropy. However, CECP is fundamentally a roll-up-your-sleeves organization, so I spent an hour today stuffing invitations for a special dinner we are hosting at the House of Lords in London before our first CEO conference abroad.

Jessica: What is one of the most exciting trends that you observe in the world of CSR?

Margaret: The most important and inspiring trend that I see across our corporate membership is the commitment to proactively engage in problem-solving on tough issues. The walls that separate funders, grantees, governments, multilaterals, activists and others are falling away as each change agent instead focuses on bringing its skills and resources to bear on today’s most difficult social challenges. Specifically, I see the work that Nestle, and Mark Kramer and Michael Porter, have done on the concept of “shared value” starting to take root more deeply among companies. This philosophy advocates for not simply aligning giving strategy with business strategy—but synthesizing the two. Essentially the idea is that companies must focus on social issues that directly touch the value chain of the business. By concentrating their efforts on social issues that create opportunities (or obstacles) to corporate growth, businesses simultaneously help society and their bottom line. In other words, corporate philanthropy is no longer a complementary function—it is essential to the company’s growth and wholly intertwined with the broader objectives of the business. We’re very excited to discuss this concept in more depth at our upcoming Corporate Philanthropy Summit in June, and have tried to take some of these ideas further for our corporate CEO audience in our latest research.

Jessica: What big challenge is currently facing CSR professionals and/or companies?

Margaret: Corporate organizational charts do not always position philanthropy and CSR professionals to actualize the full potential of their roles. These functions can deliver immense value, but not when they are in a silo, understaffed, or improperly staffed. The strategic nature of these roles has only recently begun to be broadly understood, and many companies have yet to fill them with the right talent to get the job done—or to empower that talent to get results.

Jessica: What's one interesting thing that your organization is up to? (Go ahead, brag a little.)

Margaret: One of CECP’s judging criteria for our Excellence Awards is a commitment to measurement (the others are innovation, CEO leadership, and partnership). We believe measurement is essential to effective giving (the adage ‘what gets measured, gets managed’ applies here), which is why we invest so heavily in research and systems that allow companies to track and benchmark their giving. This year, with the help of the U.N. Global Compact and partner organizations around the world, we are working to expand our measurement framework to be applicable internationally—essentially, we are striving to build a global measurement framework for corporate philanthropy. Our vision is to create a common understanding of what is considered corporate philanthropy, and how contributions should be valued. With this in hand, we can paint a rich portrait of global corporate giving and track its evolution over time. I encourage anyone with insight in this area to email my colleague Alison Rose.

Jessica: CECP recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. How has corporate philanthropy changed in past the ten years, and how do you hope it changes in the next ten years?

Margaret: At CECP, we decided to celebrate our 10-year anniversary not by looking backward, but instead by challenging ourselves and our membership to consider what the world—and the environment for corporate philanthropy—could look like in the year 2020 if we proactively adopt a solutions-oriented mindset on local and global social issues. We needed help to do this, so in addition to interviewing numerous thought leaders ourselves, we enlisted McKinsey & Company to work with us to outline the game-changing trends (demographic, environmental, technological, and geopolitical) that will shape the business landscape in 2020. This work outlines what companies need to do to prepare for the certain (and somewhat less certain) forces headed our way. I won’t preview our conclusions here, but instead invite anyone who is interested to download a free copy of the report from our website when it is available in late May 2010: http://www.corporatephilanthropy.org.

Corporate Response to the Haitian Earthquake: Update, 1/13/10

2010-01-13T22:20:00.001-05:00

The US Chamber of Commerce's Business Civic Leadership Center is tracking the corporate philanthropy response to the earthquake in Haiti here. Other great sources of such information include CSRWire and PRNewswire. Know something about corporate involvement in relief efforts that isn't included on those sites? Please share it in the comments below.

Earthquake in Haiti - How Companies Can Help

2010-01-12T23:06:00.000-05:00

As I’m sure you’ve heard, a big earthquake hit Haiti today. While details are relatively limited at this point, it seems clear that the earthquake has taken a major toll. In the wake of such disasters, companies often step up with offers of support, but in the confusing hours and days after such an event, it can be hard to know how to help.

Just after the 2004 tsunami, I wrote this article for onPhilanthropy about how companies can best contribute to disaster relief efforts. While it’s several years old, I think the advice is still relevant, so I’m posting it for those of you who may spend Wednesday working on your own company’s response.

Here are a few other resources that might be useful:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Business Civic Leadership Center has a website focused on supporting companies around issues of disaster relief. The page has a ton of great information, including a phone number specifically for companies that “Need help responding to … a disaster”. Tomorrow, as information (hopefully) starts coming out quickly, the best way to stay up to date might be Twitter – follow the Center @chamberbclc or its Executive Director, Stephen Jordan, @scjordan.

The Council on Foundations published a guide called “Disaster Grantmaking: A Practical Guide for Foundations and Corporations”, which you can find here. (Note that this link is to a PDF.)

The Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy also has a website dedicated to resources for companies engaged in disaster response efforts.

I find information sharing to be critically important in times like these, so if anyone comes across specific information about how companies can be helpful in responding to this particular earthquake, I’d really appreciate it if you’d share it in the comments below. Similarly, please share any resources you find that may be helpful for companies considering whether and how to help. Finally, if your company makes a donation, or if you hear about a company that does, please share that, as well, so that we can begin to track the corporate response to this earthquake.

Thank you, and good luck to everyone involved in this effort.

Goldman Sachs Update - Employee Giving

2010-01-11T23:16:00.002-05:00

Happy New Year! Yesterday's New York Times had a bit of an update on the Goldman corporate philanthropy story we've been following here on Reimagining CSR (see past articles here, here and here). WSJ.com has a round-up of related stories here.

According to the paper, "As it prepares to pay out big bonuses to employees, Goldman Sachs is considering expanding a program that would require executives and top managers to give a certain percentage of their earnings to charity." The article goes on to say, "While the details of the latest charity initiative are still under discussion, the firm's executives have been looking at expanding their current charitable requirements for months and trying to understand whether such gestures would damp public anger over pay…"

The most recent article doesn't provide much new information, other than what the paper reported on the same subject this past fall, beyond demonstrating that the concept is apparently still alive. However, it does compare the concept to an employee-giving program at Bear Stearns: "The charity idea would be similar to a decades-long program at the failed investment bank Bear Stearns, which required more than 1,000 of its top workers to give 4 percent of their pay to charity each year and then checked their tax returns to ensure compliance." It then goes on to estimate the impact of such a program, "Assuming a similar percentage and level of participation."

Granted, that's a big assumption - the article doesn't give any definite information about the number of workers or percent of pay that would be involved in a Goldman program - but the Bear Stearns program is still useful as a benchmark. If the company were indeed to implement an employee giving program along the lines of what's being discussed, and if the numbers looked something like Bear Stearns', my question is this - would this program actually have any impact on the overall giving by affected employees? That is, do the company's top earners (elsewhere in the NYTimes article, we learn, "For their work in 2008, 953 Goldman employees were paid more than $1 million each") currently donate less than 4% of their income?

Of course, the answer to this question doesn't necessarily change whether the program would achieve Goldman's aims. Theoretically, if this initiative could indeed influence public perception about the bonuses, it matters less whether employees' donations are increasing and more whether the company has a strong story to tell about how generous its employees are with their large paychecks. In that case, the company could get as much value simply by gathering information about its employees' existing donations and their impact and sharing that information. I'm not sure it's relevant for the company to set a mandatory giving hurdle when the hurdle is relatively easy to reach.

On the other hand, perhaps the Goldman Sachs program, if it indeed becomes reality, will be nothing like the Bear Stearns program. Perhaps it will require that employees (or at least the highest-earning employees) donate a significantly higher figure, a percentage that would seem far above what the average person would expect even from a million-dollar earner - for the sake of argument, let's say something like 25%. Would that change perceptions of the program? Would that make the general public - if that's in fact the stakeholder Goldman would be trying to influence - change its attitudes toward the company, such that this solution (employee giving program) actually impacts the problem (public anger at big bonuses) it seems designed to solve? I'm not sure - but it would definitely break through the clutter of expected actions.

Of course, maybe the lackluster reactions to the idea - as evidenced, for instance, by the comments to the NYTimes story (admittedly not a representative sample, but the comments are really negative) - will convince Goldman Sachs decision-makers that this proposed solution won't, in fact, address the problem in question. Regardless, I look forward to the next installment of this story, which continues to help us think more deeply about causal relationships in the world of corporate philanthropy.

Update - Goldman's $500 Million Controversy

2009-11-23T00:10:00.004-05:00

There were quite a few articles over the weekend that addressed Goldman Sachs' 10,000 Small Businesses program and the backlash that it has induced. Below, I've summarized a few that I found particularly interesting.

Before we turn to the articles, though, I want to point out one thing. I noticed an important line in a Financial Times article, which said, "Goldman stressed that the small business drive had been planned for a year." I'm not sure if or how that changes the discussion of whether this is a good strategic CSR initiative, but it's a useful piece of information to add into the conversation.

$500 Million is just "Crumbs from its (Goldman's) table."
The New York Times published an editorial entitled "Goldman's Non-Apology". The editorial criticizes what it argues are Goldman's contributions to causing the current recession, as well as what it sees as Goldman's unwillingness to acknowledge that it needed the government's bail-out money and that it thus isn't true that "taxpayer dollars have not helped to generate its post-crash profits." The piece goes on to address the 10,000 Small Businesses program, calling the $500 million pledge "crumbs from its table". It says, "It is hard to take seriously Goldman's claim that the program was not motivated by its public relations problems. The money will be welcomed by the recipients, but if Goldman wants to make a meaningful contribution, it would have to be in the billions and aimed more directly at taxpayers." Instead, the editorial suggests, Goldman should make "A multibillion-dollar gift to the federal Bureau of the Public Debt, which accepts tax-deductible donations to reduce the national debt."

Goldman's recent "exercise is so sequenced and packaged that it's bound to come across as disingenuous", but ultimately, the company "exists solely to make profits for its employees and shareholders."
The Wall Street Journal blog Mean Street, written by Evan Newmark, takes a very different stance, in a post entitled "Mean Street: Don't Apologize for Anything, Goldman Sachs". According to Newmark, the reason the general public is angry at Goldman is simple: "In an economy full of losers, everyone is fixated on hating the winner." He goes on to argue that the 10,000 Small Businesses initiative, along with Lloyd Blankfien's apology (quoted in the NYTimes editorial, if you want to see the exact language), "...is so sequenced and packaged that it's bound to come across as disingenuous, even deeply cynical." However, ultimately, Newman thinks that the public is coming down too hard on Goldman: "And here's the really unfortunate aspect of your current predicament: it's undeserved. Sure, there was some clumsy PR out of Goldman over the past year. But I still can't figure out why and to whom you're apologizing." Furthermore, he says, "...you're apologizing because nobody can handle the real truth: Goldman Sachs exists solely to make profits for its employees and shareholders. The rest is just PR."

"The bankers may have to give up more yet - and not only by writing a check."
A separate article New York Times article - "Wall Street's Spin Game," by Graham Bowley - gives Goldman Sachs advice on how to confront its current public relations challenges (which go beyond the Small Businesses initiative). Among the tactics he recommends is, "Give Back Some Money." However, he warns, "...there is the risk that such a strategy will be seen as a transparent ploy to buy off public opinion. Goldman's donation was only about 3 percent of the $16.7 billion the bank has so far set aside this year for its bonus pool. The bankers may have to give up more yet — and not only by writing a check." Instead, he advises (quoting Howard J. Rubenstein, president of communications firm Rubenstein Associates), the company should make it "mandatory" for its "brilliant staff" to volunteer in ways that have "real impact". (It's not particularly relevant here, but I really liked the advice to "Show you create real products that benefit people." Actually, that is relevant - ultimately, isn't CSR broadly about creating real value for the general public, that is, creating products (or services, or donations, or business processes) that benefit people?)

"As hedging strategies go, this remains far from sure to work."
The Financial Times suggests looking past the immediate controversy and into the future, with an article by Gillian Tett entitled, "Can today's philanthropy fend off future bank-bashing?" The article asks, "What exactly was going through the brain of Lloyd Blankfein, head of Goldman Sachs, this week when the bank announced a $500m initiative to help small American businesses?" Tett argues that, while making "an effort to quell the current bank-bashing" might be part of the company's reasoning, "Goldman, is (in)famous for trying to be ahead of the curve. And the really interesting political economy issue that haunts finance now, is not the attacks that Goldman (and other banks) have suffered in 2009 - but the question of what could await them in 2010, 2011, 2012 or beyond." The article suggests that, if the economic situation gets worse instead of better, we could see far greater public outrage. In this context, "Can Goldman's $500m programme protect the bank against that political risk? On paper, the target of its largesse certainly looks politically savvy: small business funding is a huge political headache in the US right now, due to its link with unemployment." However, Tett goes on to say, "...the grim fact remains that $500m is still just 3 per cent of the bank's bonus pool - and even a non-banker can see that is a small sum. As hedging strategies go, this remains far from sure to work."

"Goldman's wholesale focus…does not suit retail diplomacy."
A second Financial Times article, while focusing on the various problems threatening Goldman's reputation (its "most precious asset"), raises a very interesting question about its philanthropic efforts: "One difficulty is that Goldman's wholesale focus means little business contact with an angry public – it does not suit retail diplomacy. Even well-designed charitable initiatives, then, risk being misinterpreted." The article doesn't elaborate much on this idea, so I'm not completely sure where the authors are going with it, but I think this is a really interesting comment. It's true that the vast majority of people don't really know what Goldman Sachs does, not in the way that we know what, say, Wal-Mart, or Disney, or Bank of America do. (This relates to the advice in the NYTimes article referenced above, "Wall Street's Spin Game".) We interact with the latter companies' products and services every day, but hardly any of us interact with Goldman. As such, is it possible for the general public to have a relationship with the company, and is such a relationship critical to our ability to trust them? This is important because, as I discussed in my last post about Goldman Sachs, while CSR initiatives may build trust, they need to be built on a baseline of pre-existing trust, or people might not trust the activities or might see them as disingenuous. So, what does this mean for business-to-business companies? Are there other ways they can create that baseline of trust, or, as this FT article suggests, are they simply not suited for "retail diplomacy"?

I'm interested in looking at other instances in which a corporate philanthropy commitment has been met at least in part with negative feedback - I think isolating what doesn't work would help us to better understand what does. If you know of any good examples, I'd really appreciate hearing them.

Thanks!

Goldman’s $500 Million Controversy

2009-11-19T23:35:00.004-05:00

Goldman just made a big charitable commitment - and stirred up quite a bit of controversy. Did the company design or execute the program poorly? Are its critics being unreasonable? In this post, I examine the program and some of the reactions to it, consider what could be going wrong, and summarize the analysis of several experts in a recent discussion of the issue in the New York Times. What's your take?

Last week, I wrote about the Goldman Sachs Foundation and the company's employee giving activities. In that post, I postulated that the company was using philanthropy in part to mitigate widespread discomfort (too weak a word?) with its large employee bonuses. I also complained about comments like the following statement from a 2007 New York Times article about one of the firms' giving vehicles: "Cynics who have watched the wealth creation at Goldman might think that the program is little more than a public relations effort to mask the gigantic bonuses it is expected to pay out starting in early December…" Instead, I argued, "I don't think that's cynical at all, though, nor do I think it takes anything away from the firms' - or its partners' - philanthropy. If the company is recognizing a risk, and utilizing philanthropy as one of the tools it uses to minimize that risk, that's good strategic corporate philanthropy."

Based on general reactions to one news story this week, though, it looks like a lot of people disagree with me! This week, Goldman announced a $500 million commitment to a new "10,000 Small Businesses" program. According to an article that appeared on the New York Times website on November 17, the company will "provide $200 million to pay for small-business owners to get business and management education at local community colleges and other places," offer $300 million of grants and small loans to small businesses, and also provide mentoring (by employee volunteers) and networking opportunities to these same small-small business owners. Yesterday, an article in the Wall Street Journal gave slightly more detail, stating that $250 million of the total would be distributed as loans, with an equal quantity in grants. Warren Buffet and Michael Porter (HBS professor, major contributor to the field of strategy, founder of a nonprofit that fosters entrepreneurship and economic development in inner cities) are among the effort's advisers. The company's own discussion of the initiative is here.

Theoretically, this program makes a lot of sense as a strategic philanthropy effort. Currently, one of Goldman's major problems is that, as the New York Times put it, "it has become a punching bag for an industry that is seen by many to have benefited unfairly from billions in taxpayer dollars." People are angry that the government bailed out the financial sector, and now Goldman's employees, according to the same article, has earmarked $16.7 billion "so far" this year for employee pay. Meanwhile, unemployment remains high and the general public hasn't seen the end of this recession.

As a result, it makes sense that Goldman is investing in an effort that, if successful, is presumably designed to stimulate economic growth, from the bottom up. It is investing in small businesses, providing two resources that it has in abundance - cash and employee talent - to a population that could utilize those two resources to grow, creating social benefit. There is a direct connection between the problem Goldman faces (anger over its unequal share of the wealth) and the solution it is offering (creating a program to generate more wealth for the people who currently have a smaller piece of the pie), and it is utilizing resources that it has unique access to in order to provide that solution.

Simple, right? Um, apparently not, if the 97 comments (as of the time of this post) reacting to the Wall Street Journal article are any indication. While Goldman certainly has its defenders among WSJ commenters, responses like these were common (the commenter's name follows the quote):

"The 500 million would be pro rata 2.5% of their annual bonus this year, which is cheap buy-out for the public opinions…" (JAMES DREITO)
"The amazing part is these Goldman "masters of the universe" think we are all that stupid that we will fall for this not so subtle act of contrition...it sure must be nice to own both political parties and get away with anything and everything." (John McIlvenna)
"Goldman's actions are sickening. After STEALING tens of billions of dollars from the US taxpayer, Goldman is now insulting America with this cheap trick. Goldman Sachs must be destroyed before it destroys the US." (Peter Marlow)
"What a crock. A despicable move by Goldman to appease the masses. My bet is less than 10% of the "500 million" is ever distributed. Certainly less than $50 miliion (SIC) will ever be actually given away. Who are these creeps kidding? Endless pox on them." (Michael Smith)
"Wow, how generous of the crooks who helped create a financial meltdown, then took $64 Billion in tax payer money to make themselves whole only to pay the people who caused this billions in bonuses. It now makes sense that they should get some good Public Relations from our money and ....another tax break for handing out charity to us poor folk west of the Hudson." (TOM OKEEFE)
"Blood money." (Dirk Dreux)

So what did Goldman do wrong? I can think of a few possible issues (but I feel like these ideas could use some sharpening or refinement, and I'd love your thoughts on how to do so):

Corporate philanthropy, and CSR more broadly, can definitely help mitigate reputational and other types of risk, but it doesn't cause other acts that people judge negatively to go away. In fact, if the CSR activity seems hypocritical, people tend to react really negatively. Is that what's going on here? The fact that many commenters (and journalists) brought up a recent quote by the Goldman CEO, where he claimed that the firm is "doing God's work", suggests that this is a factor.
CSR can certainly promote trust, but maybe companies need a baseline of trust that is built through their general business activities. Otherwise, you get reactions like the ones revealed in some of the comments quoted above, with people questioning whether the company can be trusted to carry out the program as promised.
While I still believe that PR (and other business) benefits are a legitimate motivation for CSR, really good business benefits most often (though not always) come from a program's outputs and results, not just the inputs. That is, Goldman is likely to get real credit if and when it can show that it's donation has promoted economic growth. A good illustration of this viewpoint comes when the New York Times article quotes Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, regarding his thoughts on the Goldman commitment: "It's a down payment, a step forward and hopefully a precursor of a different discussion — in the long run, how do we build an economy where everyone can share in the success?" he said. "But if this is an isolated public relations activity, it's insufficient."
Or maybe I'm just in the minority, and the majority of people believe that corporate philanthropy should not benefit the business, and the companies should carry out philanthropic activities because "it's the right thing to do".

Today, the New York Times, in its Room for Debate section, tried to hash out some of these questions. It asked, "Does the firm have an obligation to make philanthropic efforts, given that it benefited from the federal support? How can the most be made of this opportunity? Should Goldman be committing more than $500 million, based on its bottom line?" It pulled together a great panel to weigh in on the matter, including:

Matthew Bishop and Michael Green, "Philanthrocapitalism"
Robert Johnson, economist
Nicole Gelinas, Manhattan Institute
Nomi Prins, senior fellow, Demos
Peter Firestein, author
Charles Best, DonorsChoose.org

Bishop and Green reacted similarly to Andrew Stern. They argue, "If this announcement is the first of many acknowledgments by the leading lights of the finance world that the winners in our economic system have a responsibility to ensure that the benefits are spread throughout society, then Goldman C.E.O. Lloyd Blankfein's recent claim that the firm is "doing God's work" may not be so ridiculous."

Johnson focuses not on the donation, but on what he sees as the structural problems that made it possible: "...Goldman Sachs would not have that $500 million of spiritual bounty to distribute if it weren't for the U.S. taxpayers. Charitable giving is nice, but we can't take our eye off the ball when it comes to the need to repair our structure of government and address the undue influence of Goldman Sachs and the other powerful financial sector firms." In other words, in his view, the philanthropic program does not address the root problem.

Gelinas is concerned that Goldman's efforts will be too successful as a PR initiative, particularly among politicians. She argues, "That is, Goldman makes tons of money thanks to an implicit taxpayer "too-big-to-fail" subsidy, and it will give a little bit of that money back in ways that please important political constituencies like the National Federation of Independent Business on the right and the National Urban League on the left, each of which will help the firm with its small-business undertaking. Because it sweetens too-big-to-fail politically, the charitable initiative is bad for the economy and society."

Along somewhat similar lines, Prins suggests that the target audience for this initiative - not in terms of beneficiaries, but in terms of whom Goldman is looking to influence - is not in fact the general public, but the government: "Mr. Blankfein missed the opportunity to be genuinely concerned about the little people about a year and a bailout ago. So he's sacrificing a $500 million pawn and by doing so, he may placate the government — a more necessary a task to him than being universally loved."

Firestein's argument draws on two of the theories I laid out above, including both the idea that the public will reject perceived hypocrisy and that a baseline of trust is required before companies can use social engagement to augment that attribute. He says, "It's a lot of money (to anyone but Goldman) but it does nothing to convey a change in the bank's attitude toward the society around it." Furthermore, he argues, "That Goldman has allowed its reputation to sink so low as to make half a billion seem like a token causes damage far beyond the bank itself. It may undermine public sentiment toward truly needed financial entities for a long time to come."

Finally, Best shares his ideas for how Goldman could improve the execution of this project. He also shares his own experience as the recipient of Goldman funding: "I know from personal experience what Goldman Sachs funding can do for a small enterprise." In this way, though not explicitly, he draws on the idea that results are important, holding up Goldman's success in helping him as evidence that perhaps they can do this well, too.

What do you think? Are Goldman's critics being unreasonable? Is the company's corporate philanthropy strategy a poor solution for the problem the company is trying to address, or has it done a poor job executing this strategy? Do motives matter, and if not, where does hypocrisy come in? Or does this situation reveal that there are simply limits to the strategic benefits of corporate philanthropy?

CSR and Social Media

2009-11-16T23:49:00.002-05:00

In the past month or so, it seems that conversations about the relationship between CSR and social media are everywhere. This obviously isn't a new topic, but it seems to have hit a new level of prominence. Here are some of the exciting articles and studies that have come out on this topic recently:

3BL Media CEO Greg Schneider explores the role of social media in CSR in a piece entitled "The 'Real -Time' of Social Media". He argues that companies must figure out how "...To communicate effectively in ways that a growing, "green-focused" audience, consisting of varied demographics, is responsive to and can trust." Social media tools, he advises, amount to "...new and different ways to reach an audience no longer receptive to traditional methods such as press releases." Furthermore, "...successful organizations have begun to realize that the value of delivering their messages, consistently in all different media formats, engages a passionate audience." I was particularly interested in his argument that companies should deliver their message "where they're (the consumers are) already spending Web time… Forget about the destination Web site. Game over."

Cross Border's IR Magazine reports on a study by Lundquist, a "strategic communication consultancy, specialising in online corporate communications". According to IR Magazine, the study "finds that while disclosure of information is usually of a high standard in CSR reporting, communication and interactivity are lacking". The article goes on to say, "The most damning result of this one-way system is that 'companies are publishing a lot of good news and avoiding the hard (sometimes uncomfortable) facts that stakeholders need if they are to judge how well a company is performing in non-financial matters,' states the report." The is particularly problematic because, "As the report points out, the internet has brought about higher expectations for corporate response." The IR Magazine article is here, while the Lundquist report is here. Jo Confino of the Guardian reacted to the study here.

In CSRWire, Bill Baue of Sea Change Media wrote an article entitled, "Corporate Social Responsibility + Social Media = Power of Transformation". He is working with Marcy Murningham and Bob Massie on a research project for the Harvard Kennedy School's Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, about Web 2.0 and corporate accountability. In the post, he talks about his experiences at several recent conferences and the connection between those events and the theme of CSR and Web 2.0. I was particularly intrigued by the following statement: "The week's takeaways: web 2.0 holds great promise to transform the way companies engage with stakeholders, but we are still way early in the innovation curve on using web 2.0 to advance corporate sustainability and accountability!" It sounds as though he's distinguishing between the use of social media as a tool to talk about CSR and the use of social media to actually advance one's CSR activities - I think that's an important distinction, and it's one that can be easy to forget about.

In Mashable, one of my favorite sources of news on social media, Melissa Jun Rowley wrote an article entitled, "Why Social Media Is Vital to Corporate Social Responsibility". So many good quotes!

"The result of things like the current economic climate and recognition of global climate change, society is starting to push past awareness and into action." (Reminds me of the move fromWeb 1.0 to 2.0)
"…The standard for CSR is being redefined and is evolving as a driver of innovation."
"There was a time when companies issued press releases, and operated under the impression that they controlled the message of their brand. Those days are gone. Today, the brand image is linked to the thoughts and conversations of a company's consumers. Therefore, businesses must get to know their constituents."
"Absolute transparency, no holds barred, is key."
"When consumers are treated as citizens, they can do everything from helping a company amplify its voice, to voting on the style of a new product, to improving a service."

Cone has released the results of its 2009 Consumer New Media Study. You can download the findings here. Among the intriguing conclusions:

"Almost 80 percent (78%) of new media users interact with companies or brands via new media sites and tools, an increase of 32 percent from 2008 (59%)." (What an opportunity this is for companies to build meaningful relationships with their consumers!)
Of course, this new opportunity comes with increased responsibility: "New media users overwhelmingly believe companies or brands should not only have a presence in new media (95%) but also interact with their consumers (89%)." (This is consistent with Lundquist's conclusion that people expect increased responsiveness from companies in this internet age.)
"Forty-four percent of American new media users are searching for, sharing or discussing information about corporate responsibility (CR) efforts and programs..."
"Sixty-two percent of users polled believe they can influence business decisions by voicing opinions via new media channels. " (I love this stat!! I think this connects back to Melissa Jun Rowley's statements about treating consumers as citizens, quoted just above - is there something big here?)

Of course, if you're interested in this topic, you're probably already familiar with Justmeans, which, among other things, helps companies "Syndicate (their) good work to multiple social networks with Justmeans" in order to "Attract and ignite advocates for better business". Justmeans recently put on the Social Media for Sustainability conference. Bill Baue talks about the event in the CSRWire article discussed previously in this post. If anyone else attended and can share some of the highlights, or knows where presentations or videos might be posted, please share!

I'm very curious to see where this is going. If you see great examples of how companies are using social media as part of their CSR efforts, or if you have thoughts on the key themes that run through these activities, I'd love to hear more.

The New York Times on the Goldman Sachs Foundation, or WHY Can't We Acknowledge that CSR is Good for a Company??

2009-11-12T00:26:00.003-05:00

The New York Times just posted to its website an article about the Goldman Sachs Foundation's most recent tax filing. The Goldman Sachs Foundation is interesting because it holds significant assets, like a private foundation. My understanding (I don't have the statistics to back this up, anyone know for sure?) is that many/most company foundations are pass-through entities ,with the company donating the next year's budget at the beginning of that year. As a result, as the Foundation's tax filing contains information about how its assets were managed, the article reports that it "...provides a glimpse of the legendary trading that has helped put the firm on track for its best year ever."

The article goes on to discuss what the reporter seems to see as Goldman's use of corporate philanthropy as a reputation management tool: "Given the firm’s anticipated profits and supersize bonuses, which have touched off public furor, it is no surprise that Goldman said recently it would increase its charitable giving. It has set aside $200 million to nearly double the size of its main foundation."

Interestingly, this article about the company's foundation also discusses giving by its executives. "After Mr. Whitehead (that's former co-chairman John C. Whitehead) challenged the firm to do more, it created a donor-advised fund that it hoped would reach $1 billion over a few years. The fund allows the firm’s 400 partners to put aside money for the charities of their choice." I know that companies often report on employee giving as part of their overall philanthropic efforts, but this isn't your typical employee giving campaign. While the company did make its own donation to the Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund, it (like any donor-advised fund) primarily facilitates giving by the donors (to "the charities of their choice").

At first glance, this is a bit random - what interest does Goldman have in its partners' personal philanthropy? However, one of the big strategic issues that Goldman seems to be facing these days is managing its reputation in the face of that "public furor" over "supersize bonuses". As such, it makes a lot of sense that the firm would want to encourage and promote charitable giving funded by those bonuses. Actually, it's even more interesting given that the Fund predates the crises, or at least the worst of it, which suggests this is a relatively long-term concern for Goldman Sachs.

Here's an article about the creation of the Fund - though the article calls it by a different name, GS Gives - from November 2007. One interesting line from that article, in light of my above analysis: "Cynics who have watched the wealth creation at Goldman might think that the program is little more than a public relations effort to mask the gigantic bonuses it is expected to pay out starting in early December (to be paid next year). But few want to discourage charitable efforts. " I don't think that's cynical at all, though, nor do I think it takes anything away from the firms' - or its partners' - philanthropy. If the company is recognizing a risk, and utilizing philanthropy as one of the tools it uses to minimize that risk, that's good strategic corporate philanthropy.

It doesn't surprise me that some would see such activity (if that's even Goldman's intent, I could be assigning them motives that aren't there) as self-serving. However, I believe that it's only when we maximize the positive impact that CSR (including corporate philanthropy) can have on companies will we be able to maximize the resources that companies invest in CSR. As such, I WANT to see companies connecting their CSR efforts to public relations or any of the many other business needs that CSR can help serve. However, I often see comments like the one in the 2007 article, suggesting that there is something wrong with a company that seeks to use CSR as a tool to meet its business goals. Similarly (and probably because of those comments), I SO OFTEN hear CSR executives lay out some great, strategic ways in which their CSR activities fit into the larger business, but then say that the company really only gets involved in CSR because it's "the right thing to do". It may or may not be the right thing to do - I'd just as soon avoid Milton Friedman this late at night - but we WILL NOT achieve CSR's full potential if that's the best reason we can give for engaging in corporate social responsibility.

But how in the world do we get past this issue?? Please, if you have any thoughts or ideas on this, share them in the comment section below.

News Update: Environment

2009-11-02T23:15:00.002-05:00

A couple of articles on CSR have caught my eye recently:

"Everybody in the Pool of Green Innovation" - Over the weekend, the New York Times published an article looking at communication and collaboration among companies seeking to improve their environmental performance. In particular, the article talks about companies that donate patents for environmentally-responsible products, processes, etc. to the public commons.

"With New Care Tags, Levi Strauss Aims to Reduce Its Footprint" - Interesting way to manage product lifecycle concerns - according to the New York Times, "The company will soon sew revamped tags into all of its clothing that instruct people to donate items when they are no longer needed." The tags will also recommend washing practices (cold wash, line dry) that conserve energy .

It's interesting that, in both cases, the CSR activities don't necessarily require a major investment by the company. The donated patents, for instance, are primarily patents that aren't especially strategic to the donor companies, so the donors don't get much value out of holding them close. By donating the patents to the public commons, the donor companies enable a range of other players to be more sustainable. Similarly, I don't think Levi Strauss is incurring any extra cost (beyond redesigning its labels, I suppose) by asking consumers to be more thoughtful about the environmental impact of their jeans - instead, as in the green innovation article, the company in question is making it more likely that an external party behave more responsibly. (Of course, these low-cost activities may be packaged with higher cost activities, like grants that seek to leverage their impact.)

These are great examples of companies indentifying CSR activities that are relatively cheap for them to carry out, but relatively high value for the community at large.

BSR Conference - Session Summaries Available

2009-10-27T00:47:00.002-04:00

Business for Social Responsibility held its conference in San Francisco last week. Titled "Reset Economy. Reset World.", the conference implored attendees to "Deliver Business Value by Thinking Big and Embracing Long-Term Sustainability Trends".

My favorite new trend in conferences is that everyone is tweeting, blogging, and streaming their sessions, so those who can't attend in person can still participate. BSR is a great example of this, having put Session Summaries (featuring an overview of the conversation, including "memorable quotes") up on this website, along with video clips of key speeches. I highly recommend checking out the summaries and videos - I'm particularly excited to learn more about sessions like "The Changing Function of the CSR Team in a Reset World", "Sustainable Consumption", and "A Conversation with Pamela Passman". (Regarding the latter, I'm intrigued by Microsoft's CSR efforts and especially by Passman's comments in the summary about collaborating with competitors on sustainability.)

You can also find a few blog posts about the conference on BSR's blog, The Business of a Better World, as well as fairly extensive coverage by GreenBiz.com, at this website.

If anyone else attended the conference and wants to share thoughts and impressions in a guest post, I'd love to hear from you! You can email me at reimaginingcsr (at) gmail (dot) com. Of course, also feel free to leave your ideas in a comment.

Thanks!

Welcome Back to Reimagining CSR!

2009-10-07T23:19:00.002-04:00

Welcome back to Reimagining CSR! I originally started this blog as part of a project for my MBA, and I stopped blogging when I graduated. Now, though, it's undeniably fall in Boston, and while I've been back in the world of full-time work for a couple of months now, the back-to-school feeling in the air is inspiring me to start writing again.

Last spring, we talked a lot about the impact of the recession on CSR. We looked at news and research on the topic, and we listened to chatter among practitioners. We considered reasons that the recession could increase socially responsible activities among companies (here and here), considered possible negative ramifications of some of these activities, and sometimes wondered why we didn’t see still more companies engaging in win-win activities. I know this is a topic that remains of interest to many of you. Even now, searches like "recession CSR" continue to bring new readers to this blog.

Because of that shared interest, I'm excited to draw your attention to the Boston College Center on Corporate Citizenship's recently released report, "State of Corporate Citizenship 2009: Weathering the storm". This document is the fourth installment in the Center's biennial series. Each report is based on a "survey of the attitudes and actions of senior executives in small, medium and large businesses regarding corporate citizenship."

Some particularly exciting findings, as summarized in the report by Barbara Dyer, President and CEO of The Hitachi Foundation:

"...over half of these business leaders believe that corporate citizenship is even more important in a recession."
"Increasingly, companies are aiming to integrate corporate citizenship with their business strategy." (This is something that we discussed in our conversations last spring, and it's also consistent with early research from the Conference Board.)
"More businesses’ leaders recognize that being a good corporate citizen adds real value to their firm. Particularly when times are desperate, attention is focused like a laser on those matters that contribute value to their bottom line. Most businesses maintained and some others expanded their attention to, and budget for, corporate citizenship. These actions are the strongest evidence that corporate citizenship has met the value-added test for a large and growing segment of U.S. businesses."

Reports like this one make me hopeful. They make me consider that, in the long run, this recession might be a good thing for the field of CSR. I hope that, as companies are faced with both increased social needs and decreased resources available, they will learn to build programs that are truly win-win. These programs will go beyond just looking good in a press release, to be truly embedded in the companies' business strategies. As I've said before, I think that only when companies see CSR as a critical component of achieving their larger business goals will they invest in CSR not as a nice-to-have, but rather at the levels required to enable CSR to fulfill its potential.

Profile - McKesson and Comparative Advantage

2009-04-29T22:36:00.002-04:00

On Monday, I wrote about corporate philanthropy and comparative advantage. I argued that companies should focus their corporate philanthropy programs on contributing resources to which they uniquely have access, resources that they can provide at a cost that is lower than the beneficiary would pay on the open market. As such, I argued that most companies should donate primarily expertise and perhaps products, giving cash only to leverage such donations. Today, I want to illustrate that theory.

Last week, I had the chance to speak with Carrie Varoquiers, President of the McKesson Foundation and Vice President of Corporate Citizenship at the McKesson Corporation. Back in February, I wrote a post on the impact of the recession on CSR. Carrie commented on that post, saying, in part:

“I have also noticed a dearth of corporate operating foundations, which is actually quite surprising. Most corporations have institutional knowledge and in-house resources to create and manage social benefit programs, especially if their Foundation’s mission is well aligned with their business. It’s very curious. Perhaps we will see more of this model moving forward.

I’m not saying traditional grantmaking corporate foundations shouldn’t exist, I am simply saying that it’s not the only option for creating meaningful social change.”

This way of thinking is very much in line with how I think about corporate philanthropy and comparative advantage, so as I was writing Monday’s post, I reached out to Carrie to hear more about how she approaches this issue.

First, a bit of background: San Francisco-based McKesson describes itself as “a health care services company dedicated to helping its customers deliver high-quality health care by reducing costs, streamlining processes, and improving the quality of care and patient safety.” According to its profile on Hoovers.com, the company is a pharmaceuticals distributor (the biggest in North America) and a medical supplies wholesaler; it also provides software and technical services to insurers and health care providers. The publicly-traded company’s 32,000 employees generated 2008 sales of $101.7 billion.

Carrie joined the McKesson Foundation in 2003 and took on her current role last year. She told me that, historically, the company practiced more “traditional philanthropy”, giving small grants to a wide variety of nonprofits because it was the right thing to do. Recently, though, McKesson engaged in a strategic planning process for its community engagement function. As a result, it’s decided to focus its efforts on chronic disease management, beginning with diabetes.

McKesson’s approach to this issue goes beyond aligning the company’s cause with its business goals, which has been the extent of strategic philanthropy for most companies. McKesson is also aligning the types of resources it donates with its own comparative advantage. As Carrie points out, the company could have chosen simply to make a grant to a nonprofit that works on diabetes management. Indeed, cash is a resource of which McKesson has plenty – as of December 31, 2008, its financial statements indicated that it was carrying nearly $1.2 billion of cash and cash equivalents on its balance sheet and stockholders’ equity was close to $6.2 billion. However, as I discussed yesterday, McKesson does not have unique access to cash. Instead, it has unique access to its professional expertise – and Carrie told me that the company has professional experience in chronic disease management.

According to McKesson’s new strategy, while grantmaking will continue to be a component of its philanthropic strategy, the company will also operate its own social engagement programs – something along the lines of the corporate operating foundation Carrie mentioned in her comment. The company will be contributing its expertise in chronic disease management, which I believe will enable it to contribute resources of greater value than the cash it could contribute for the same cost to the company. Currently, the Foundation is investigating the feasibility of a diabetes cell phone project, whereby automated calls are made to diabetes patients, who respond with information about their blood sugar levels; the technology flags patients that require follow-up. The technology, which Carrie described as inexpensive, has demonstrated decreased ER visits in pilot programs.

I’m especially interested in the fact that the company is experimenting with an earned-income strategy for its foundation. The McKesson Foundation hopes that, by selling the program to insurance companies based on the expected cost savings, it will be able to subsidize the cost of providing it free to uninsured patients in community clinics. Through this earned-income approach, Carrie hopes not to get more money into the Foundation’s endowment, but instead to be able to expand this healthcare quality improvement to more patients.

I asked Carrie why, given the apparent market opportunity, McKesson is researching this project through the Foundation, instead of a business unit. She told me that, in such a large, geographically dispersed company that provides so many services, “This project is in its infancy, so little data is available to prove the viability of this disease management strategy yet”. She described the company as mission-driven - "everything that we're doing is improving patients’ lives" – so the business unit presidents see all of their possible business opportunities as beneficial to society and, within that, look for the largest profit margins and the largest markets. While the project has not yet met the investment criteria for McKesson’s business units, the corporate social engagement function has the flexibility to take it on if the feasibility study proves successful.

I also asked Carrie about some of the challenges she’s facing as she takes this relatively unorthodox approach to corporate philanthropy. She talked a lot about innovation, and the lack thereof in the very traditional field of philanthropy at Fortune 500 companies. She told me that change will have to be driven by the leadership of these companies, or by the analysts who evaluate their activities. She also acknowledges that this approach to social engagement is much easier for her to implement, given the industry in which McKesson operates – “I don't know how that would work if you were looking at a company like Gucci”. I was particularly intrigued by a comment she made earlier in our conversation, about the need to take care in carving out a philanthropic focus area when a company decides to donate the resources it uses to make money – she told me that, when the McKesson Foundation attempted a similar social engagement approach a few years ago, the project ended up in direct competition with one of McKesson’s business offerings. As such, it was important that she identify an area that the company is not in and doesn’t plan to expand into, at least in the near future.

I’m really excited by McKesson’s approach. As I said on Monday, I think companies can dramatically increase the impact of their community involvement, without changing its cost to the company in question, by leveraging the very resources that make them successful in business. McKesson has a comparative advantage in providing expertise about chronic disease management, and that’s relatively more valuable that its cash contributions. I look forward to following this story to see how it works out and what we can all learn from McKesson’s approach.

Comparative Advantage and Corporate Philanthropy

2009-04-27T00:25:00.002-04:00

What's the most valuable thing Coca-Cola has to offer? Its brand, certainly, helps it outsell its competitors. I'm sure the company also places great value on its top-secret formula. I'm particularly impressed with the company's distribution network - my friend once saw a Coca-Cola billboard in a rural, rural part of East Africa, hours from the nearest city, and it certainly seems that you can buy a Coke anywhere in the world.

Other successful companies have their own unique, highly-valued assets. GE is famous for its leadership development expertise, and McDonald’s has real estate portfolio with an incredible footprint. Microsoft has an enviable amount of cash sitting on its balance sheet, but I'm sure the company is more concerned with hanging on to its talented developers, who create solutions to problems that stand in the way productivity.

When Google.org announced its reorganization last month, the company also stated, "…our greatest impact has come when we've attacked problems in ways that make the most of Google's strengths in technology and information". That is, Google.org feels it's had the biggest impact on the social problems it cares about when it has utilized its own most valuable asset - in my interpretation, that includes Google's employees and their unique expertise in using technology to solve problems that stem from a lack of organized, accessible information.

This makes a lot of sense to me. When companies put their unique assets to work on social problems, they offer a resource that almost no one else can offer. Furthermore, they can typically make an impact utilizing their existing skills and processes more cost-effectively than a nonprofit partner could buy those services on the open market. One very clear impact of that is in the pharmaceutical sector. Thanks to the economics of the pharmaceutical industry, while fixed costs are very high (drug discovery is ridiculously expensive, and I imagine that setting up manufacturing isn't cheap), marginal costs - the cost of making one extra dose - are fairly low. As such, a pharmaceutical company will have a much greater impact if it donates drugs that cost it a million dollars to make, rather than contributing a million dollars cash, as the recipient of the cash donation would be able to buy a far smaller quantity of drugs than the quantity the company can make for the same cost to the business.

Basically, I think it all comes down to comparative advantage. Companies might have a lot of cash - maybe even more cash than a lot of the other players in a community. They don't have UNIQUE access to cash, though, and cash isn't the most valuable thing they can offer. So if you have a foundation that could offer a $100,000 grant, and a company that could offer a $100,000 grant OR a service (that the grantee needs) that would cost the company $100,000 to offer but would cost the grantee $200,000 to purchase, wouldn't you want the company to specialize its philanthropy in donating that services? Of course, nonprofits have a need for cash as well, but better for the foundation to specialize in that offering, while the company specializes in something that no other donor can offer as cost effectively.

Of course, sometimes a company needs to donate some cash to unlock the value of the donated product or expertise. I recently read a case about Merck's corporate social engagement activities (Rangan, V. Kasturi, and Katharine Lee. "Merck: Global Health and Access to Medicines." Harvard Business School Case 509-048), for a class I'm taking called Business at the Base of the Pyramid. One part of the case described the company's philanthropic activities in Botswana around 2000, where Merck donated both cash ($56.5 million) and antiretroviral drugs. According to Raymond V. Gilmartin, then Merck's CEO (and now a professor at HBS):

"It was very clear to many of us that just giving free drugs would not do it. We needed to engineer an entire supply chain, train health professionals, build infrastructure for testing and treatment. All this and more would be crucial to the success of the program."

If Merck had just donated drugs - the resource in which it had a comparative advantage, relative to the other players in the public health space - the drugs might not have ultimately been deployed effectively. However, note that, in this particular initiative, Merck partnered with the Gates Foundation, which also put in $56.5 million in cash - this allowed Merck to redirect its significant but ultimately limited corporate resources to that which it uniquely could offer. Overall, according to the same case, in 2007, Merck donated $828 million, including $62 million in cash (7% of total giving), $161 million through the U.S. Patient Assistance Program (19%), and $605 million via the Merck Medical Outreach Program (73%); the latter two programs, accounting for nearly 93% of total giving, are both product donation programs.

Overall, corporate giving in the US, when broken down by cash and non-cash giving, doesn't look like Merck's program. In its "The 2008 Corporate Contributions Report", The Conference Board surveyed 197 "major" companies regarding their 2007 giving. The survey found that, among the U.S. respondents, 45.77% of giving was cash, while 54.23% was non-cash; interestingly, among non-U.S. companies, 66.20% was non-cash. The Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP), in its 2008 "Giving in Numbers" report, had somewhat different findings - it surveyed 155 companies, including 69 of the largest 100 public companies in the U.S., and found that 20% of total giving was non-cash. (I'm not sure why this discrepancy exists - my best guess is that the Conference Board survey happened to include a few more of the big pharma companies, which tend both to give more and to give a higher percentage of contributions in the form of non-cash giving - for instance, in the CECP report, which categorized the respondents into eight industries, "health care" was the only one that gave more than half of its contributions in this form.)

Either way, though, it's clear that most companies are not focusing primarily on contributing their core competencies, and cash is used as more than a way to leverage non-cash contributions. Based on the logic I've laid out thus far, I don't think that's a good thing. I think it's inefficient for companies to give so much cash when they have more valuable resources available, that the total value of corporate contributions would go up if companies were to focus more on contributing the non-cash resources that make them successful in their core businesses.

That said, I have to admit that I'm a bit uncomfortable with the logical conclusion of my argument, that cash contributions by companies would fall significantly. Cash, after all, is much easier to use, and it's much more flexible - it can be deployed to address any number of needs. Companies play an important role in funding the small nonprofits that make up the fabric of a community. Those relatively small grants might not play a big role in the companies' philanthropic strategies, but they might be awfully important to the recipients. As companies become more and more strategic in their community involvement - and I think this is a very, very good thing - what happens to these small organizations, which have for so long received grants just for being local? Big organizations may have well-developed systems for receiving and utilizing product donations; they may have entire departments that can coordinate the use of highly-skilled volunteers, but can your local homeless shelter extract value from a non-cash gift as effectively as it can spend the cash?

I think small nonprofits can indeed utilize these resources, but it will take a constellation of intermediary organizations to make this happen. The United Way and community foundations have, for generations, created economies of scale for their local nonprofits by raising money, pooling it, and distributing it in relatively small quantities, to organizations that, individually, might not have been able to afford to build extensive fundraising departments. Today, Taproot Foundation is playing a similar role with skills-based volunteerism. By coordinating teams for professionals in areas like marketing and strategy management and "granting" the teams to nonprofits that might not be able to solicit and manage such pro bono services on their own, Taproot helps bridge the divide described above. Similarly, Gifts In Kind International was able to accept $750 million in product donations last year, from thousands of companies, and distribute them to 150,000 organizations.

I also think it's critical to recognize a key area in which most companies do NOT have a core competency - identifying social problems and figuring out how to address them. There are exceptions to this rule - health care companies, for instance, probably have quite a bit of relevant knowledge in-house. In most cases, though, it's important for the corporate partner to acknowledge that it doesn't have a comparative advantage in this piece of the puzzle, while its prospective nonprofit partners do. I think that building strong, thoughtful partnerships is an important way to ensure that each player can individually contribute its own comparative advantage, and that together, the suite of offerings meets the social needs in question.

So could Coca-Cola use its amazing distribution expertise to help development organizations solve the "last mile" problem in international development? Could GE invite nonprofit leaders to its leadership courses at Crotonville? Could Microsoft put its developers to work solving the computing needs of the worlds' poor? Could McDonald's engage in a social marketing campaign with incredible reach, given the fact that, every day, millions of people all over the world spend several minutes within an environment that the company controls?

Certainly, these companies, and many others, are creating innovative solutions utilizing their comparative advantages - Coca-Cola, for instance, donates its distribution expertise and capacity for the purpose of disaster relief, while Microsoft, through its Unlimited Potential program, uses the company's skills and knowledge to create technology products that foster economic and social development at the middle and base of the economic pyramid. If you have other examples, PLEASE post them in the comments section.

I think there's a lot of potential for companies to increase their impact without increasing the cost to the company of community involvement. This makes me really optimistic about the future of such social engagement, despite the tough economy. While companies seem to be taking corporate citizenship seriously, I think that we have yet to hit the inflection point, in terms of the impact they can have on the community. I think that focusing on comparative advantage - and recognizing that, in many cases, this means shifting from donating cash to donating expertise or products - will be a major factor in getting there.

News Update

2009-04-17T01:02:00.002-04:00

Lots of interesting news in CSRWire recently! A few of the stories in Wednesday's Weekly Alert that I found intriguing:

The Company You Keep: IBM Sustainable Procurement Consulting Service Helps Clients Reduce Costs, Ensure Suppliers Are "Green," Ethical, Safe - IBM has developed a consulting offering through which it will help its clients "establish sustainability standards… throughout their global supplier networks".

UN Global Compact Annual Review Highlights Progress Made, Identifies Gaps in Corporate Responsibility Practice - Covers results from the "United Nations’ largest-ever corporate responsibility survey" . The short story: "...corporations around the world are making progress in adopting responsible business practices. Yet, serious implementation gaps remain, particularly in supply chain management and subsidiary engagement." (Looks like supply chains are a theme!)

Despite Economic Pressures, Majority of Companies Plan to Increase Emphasis on Sustainability - Reports the findings of a survey by of corporate communications professionals. Favorite quote: "'At a time when the economy requires everyone to stay focused on the essentials, it's noteworthy that businesses are putting sustainability programs into that must-do column,' said Nancy Costopulos, chief marketing officer of the American Marketing Association."

Then, from the New York Times:

Getaways That Are ‘Guilt Free’ - The story is about vacations that won't make you feel guilty about spending a lot of money on a luxury during a recession. It talks fairly extensively about programs that incorporate philanthropy and service into the trip. Will this be a long-term trend in the travel industry? Is it moving beyond the tour operators covered in this story to incorporate hotels and other players in this industry?

Have you seen any interesting news lately? Please post a link!

Cause Marketing Motivations

2009-04-15T22:21:00.002-04:00

Why do people buy products that are part of cause marketing campaigns? I've always assumed the obvious, that it was mostly because they care about the cause being promoted. Or maybe they don't care about the specific cause, but they feel good about doing something that makes the world a little better, irrespective of how it does so. I also suspect that sometimes, it's just because the cause promotion helps the product break through the clutter - when you're looking at a wall of nearly identical post-it notes, all at nearly identical prices, the ones with the pink ribbons on the packaging stand out. Similarly, I suspect that, when a company creates a product with a cause marketing component, it gives them a hook when negotiating with retailers for the best possible shelf space, which in turn leads to increased sales.

I came across another reason, though, that I think has interesting implications for cause marketers. I'm currently reading Creative Capitalism, the compilation of essays on the title topic, edited by Michael Kinsley. Early in the book, Kinsley has included Bill Gates' 2008 speech at Davos that launched that term into the mainstream (that introduced the term, perhaps?). In the speech, Gates has this to say about (RED): "If you give people a chance to associate themselves with a cause they care about, they will pay more, and that premium can make an impact."

Notice what Gates does NOT say: "If you give people a chance to" impact, or to contribute to "a cause they care about." He says "to associate themselves with", and that's a fundamentally different concept. Association is not about action, it's about identity. I associate myself with a cause when I wear a particular t-shirt (like Gap's RED shirts), when I join a particular group on Facebook, when I slap a sticker on the back of my car. When I take those actions, I may be raising awareness, I may be winning hearts and minds, but let's focus on association - I'm telling people who I am, what I stand for, and what kind of person I want to be.

The fact that (RED) and its ilk seem particularly popular among teens and young adults makes more sense in light of this framework. That population is still in the midst of exploring and trying on identities, so anything that helps someone in this demographic to project his or her identity to peers is attractive.

If Gates is right, this is a really powerful concept. If a marketer can get prospective customers to make a product part of the identity they display to the world, that sounds like a gold mine to me - and the money goes to both the Gap and the Global Fund.

This also suggests that marketers should think about cause marketing in a really different way than I suspect many currently do. Right now, I imagine that decision-making around cause marketing typically goes in one of two ways. Either the company decides to create a product that raises money for a cause with which the company is already affiliated, as an extension of existing philanthropy, or the company decides to run a cause marketing campaign and searches for a cause with which to affiliate. In the latter case, marketers try to identify a cause that it's customers care about - they may use market research to identify this cause, or they may look for causes with the same target demographic as the company (which is why women's clothing stores seem to turn into a uniform array of pink ribbons every October, in honor of breast cancer awareness).

If we take the latter case, the "competition" for the cause-related products (it's awkward to think of it that way, but I think we have to) includes other cause marketing campaigns benefiting the same cause, along with direct donations to the organization in question. It also includes volunteerism or activism that support the cause.

On the other hand, if we buy cause marketing products in order to broadcast our identities, the marketer's job is not so simple. While women, as a monolithic group, might have a common reason to be concerned about breast cancer, they are interested in projecting a wide array of different identities. Women who shop at Coldwater Creek and women who shop at New Balance - both companies are members of the Komen Million Dollar Council Elite - might want to impact the same causes, but they likely want to project very different identities. That said, these two companies aren't trying to attract "women" as a monolithic group, either. They each have very specific target audiences, which can be delineated in part, I imagine, by exactly this issue of identity.

In this case, the competition isn't writing a check - most of us don't write checks big enough to name a building or otherwise make our philanthropy part of our public image. Instead, the competition could be logo t-shirts, or fashion in general, or our Facebook profiles, or the music we play when the car window is down, or any other tool we use to tell the world who we are.

This makes the cause marketer's job much more complicated, and probably more difficult. On the other hand, it gives marketers the opportunity to build a deep and unique relationship with the customer, just the type of relationship that goes beyond a transaction to a partnership.

Why Just Law?

2009-03-30T23:22:00.003-04:00

Last week, I wrote a couple of posts (here and here) about law firms deferring starts dates for new hires, and encouraging them (along with recently laid-off employees, in some cases) to take on pro bono jobs, with partial salaries from the law firms. I've been looking for other industries that are doing something similar - that is, recognizing assets that are under-utilized thanks to the business slow-down and loaning them out to nonprofits. Surprisingly, I haven't found much.

The lack of a pro bono or in-kind giving spike in industries other than law made me think about what characteristics would make an industry likely to increase such giving in the face of a recession. For instance, it makes sense to me that the legal firm is increasing pro bono activity for the following reasons:

According to a recent CNN article, deferring start dates can save law firms $100,000 per associate, even when the firms are still paying a partial salary. I imagine that this comes not just from the high salaries that are common in the industry (according to the same CNN article, the median starting salary for lawyers in private practice was $108,500 in 2007), but also from the high cost of training new hires, along with benefits, overhead costs, year-end bonuses, etc.
All law firms have to sell is their employees' expertise. As such, they are a critical resource - the firms can't allow this recession to have an negative impact their access to talent, or they won't be able to scale back up after it ends.
By putting new hires to work in a pro bono capacity, these inexperienced attorneys are getting valuable work experience, reducing the training cost to the firm once they come on board.
The legal industry has an infrastructure in place to handle pro bono work - many firms have pro bono coordinators, many lawyers have pro bono experience, and many nonprofits have experience putting pro bono lawyers to work.

So what are principles can we generalize to other industries? I believe that industries are more likely to donate recession-induced excess capacity if they meet some or all of the following criteria:

The resource is costly to the firm - if the firm can get even part of the cost off their books, or if it can extract some value out of the resource, it is motivated to do so.
The resource is valuable to the firm - the firm will absolutely need this resource after the recession. If the firm disposes of the resource, it will take some time to get it back after the recession ends (inhibiting the firm's ability to scale back up); there may even be a risk that the firm won't be able to recapture the resource.
If the firm donates this excess capacity to a nonprofit, it will extract more value from the resource than letting it sit idle. The process of being loaned out may actually add value to the resource (e.g., in the case of lawyers doing pro bono work), or the donation may have some other positive benefit to the firm (e.g., improved reputation).
The firm knows how to lend out the resource to a social sector organization; conversely, nonprofits know how to use this resource.

What other industries fit some or all of these criteria, and have seen their business slow down in the face of the recession, thus leaving their resources underutilized?

It seems to me that finance firms, with respect to their employees, are facing much the same challenges as law firms. Their employees are highly paid and highly skilled, and the firms' essential product is their employees' skill - they really can't afford to lose these people, as they'll be critical to the firms' success when the economy recovers. Putting these employees to work in a pro bono capacity should indeed add value to the employees, as a training exercise, as there are many nonprofits dedicated to issues that are closely related to the work these employees do for banks and other finance companies. Because many firms have a history of donating time and money to nonprofits that work on financial literacy, the infrastructure for pro bono work is more or less in place (if not as well developed as in law). Because this recession is creating increased demand for nonprofits in this field, they should certainly be able to use this donated resource.

So are these companies following the legal industry's lead? JPMorgan put Bear Stearns summer interns to work in nonprofits last summer, but other than that, I haven't seen significant parallels. My gut reaction is that financial firms are in such significant trouble, that they're beyond these kinds of programs - they're saving the people they can to do the work they have left, but they just have to cut costs wherever they can. As a result, they may face some problems when they scale back up, but they don't have any alternatives. Or is there some other reason that the finance industry isn't engaging heavily with pro bono programs?

Consulting is a near-perfect match for law - the hiring process is similar; the types of people hired are very similar; consulting firms also have a pro bono history; their skills are similarly valuable to non-profits; and the nonprofits offer valuable experience for consultants. Furthermore, consulting firms, too, are pushing back start dates. That said, from what I've heard from my many friends going to big consulting firms next year, start dates aren't being pushed back later than January or February; compared to the full year some law firms are delaying their offers, this seems less likely to lead to attrition. (I'd also add that it seems consulting firms have always been pretty flexible about letting employees defer offers to take on short-term positions with nonprofits, even if they don't seem to be creating formal, paid fellowships like the law firms are currently doing.)

Moving beyond skilled employees to other types of underutilized assets, the travel industry comes to mind. Hotels, in particular, might have an interesting opportunity to increase in-kind donations. Much of a hotels' costs are fixed - no matter how empty the hotel is, the company still has to pay for the cost of the building itself, along with desk staff, restaurant staff, utilities, etc. Certainly, there is room to scale these costs down if the company expects occupancy rates to decline, but a big portion of these costs are fixed. As such, I expect that the cost of donating rooms - to Make-A-Wish, for instance, or even to nonprofit employees traveling for business purposes - is relatively low; these additional occupants are only incurring the additional fixed costs (e.g., utilities in the room, additional housekeeping, additional wear-and-tear on the room). While the benefit to the company isn't as clear-cut as better-trained employees, there should definitely be a reputational advantage, if the company communicates its donations well.

Airlines are somewhat similar - the vast majority of costs are fixed (the plane, most of the fuel), so putting a sick kid on the plane, off to visit a specialist, has very low additional cost to the airline. As with hotels, the recession is decreasing demand and leaving seats empty. Unlike hotels, airlines can reduce the number of flights they run, so they can somewhat reduce their excess capacity; however, to the extent that they aren't able to eliminate it entirely, there may be an opportunity to donates these extra seats to nonprofits.

What other industries have seen their business slow down as a result of the recession, leading to excess capacity? Of these, which meet the criteria laid out above, suggesting they may be good candidates for increased pro bono activity or in-kind giving? Or do you have other ideas about what makes an industry a good candidate for such programs? What stands in the way of getting such programs into place?

Thanks!

Update: Pro Bono Opportunities

2009-03-24T17:25:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, I wrote about a trend among law firms to put their employees, idle in the face of a recession-induced decline in business, to work for nonprofits. It seems to be a timely topic, as I've come across a few other recent articles on the topic:

Also yesterday, onPhilanthropy.com (where I used to serve as Corporate Philanthropy Editor), published an interview on this subject with Michael A. Rothenberg, Executive Director of New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. One of the concerns I highlighted in my post yesterday was that, as the economy recovers, the pro bono resources will be pulled out of nonprofits which have come to depend on them. This interview points out that a number of the attorneys who take on pro bono opportunities will be working on problems that have been created by the recession, like foreclosures. While the economic recovery may mean that pro bono programs scale back to pre-recession levels, it may also mean that the burden on public interest law organizations is decreased. This makes me feel somewhat better about the sustainability of these programs.

The onPhilanthropy article directed me to this article published by CNN last week. The CNN article gives some good context, including more examples of firms that are encouraging new hires with deferred offers and laid-off employees to go into public service jobs for the time being; it also explains some of the economics that make paying attorneys to work for someone else attractive to law firms. The CNN article refers to students and attorneys with the same big concern that I have - that is, that students who come with a stipend from a law firm will displace those who have always intended to go into public interest law. However, it also quotes individuals that are hopeful that this situation will cause public interest law careers - not just short-term stints - to become attractive to students who might not have otherwise considered anything but corporate jobs.

AmericanLawyer.Com also took on this issue recently, in an article published on Thursday. The article focuses on the logistical challenges of managing this influx of pro bono resources, and the role that the Association of Pro Bono Counsel is playing in coordinating solutions to these challenges. The article also addressing the difficulty - and yet the importance - of matching specific lawyers with specific opportunities, to ensure that both parties truly benefit from the experience.

Have you read anything else that illuminates this subject, or that illustrates a similar situation in a different industry? If so, please post a link in the comments. Thanks!

Recession Special: Pro Bono Opportunities

2009-03-23T22:23:00.003-04:00

I just read an article published today on SFGate.com, the San Francisco Chronicle's online edition. It details a trend among laid-off workers to seek volunteer opportunities with nonprofits as part of their job search.

The article reminded me of a conversation I had over dinner last weekend with a friend who is in law school. She's strongly interested in public interest law, to the point that she's not considering taking a corporate job. Before law school, she worked with two nonprofits, one of which provided legal services to those unable to afford it, and she knows for sure that she wants to do this type of work as soon as she graduates from law school.

Over dinner, we talked about the recent trend among big law firms, in the face of the recession, to delay their new associates' start dates. Some of these firms are paying their new hires a partial salary to work in public interest law. According to a post this past Friday on the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog:

"Morgan, Lewis, for instance, has delayed the start date for 68 incoming lawyers by one year, until the fall of 2010. But the firm will pay the lawyers up to $70,000 each if they take on such jobs as litigating at a public defender’s office or providing corporate-law advice to a nonprofit organization. Pillsbury Winthrop has extended a one-year offer to pay salary and benefits to each of 55 laid-off lawyers who takes on a public-interest job. Simpson Thacher has launched a similar program."

On face value, this seems like a great CSR move on the part of the law firms. Because of the business slow-down, companies have a lot of underutilized assets sitting around - in this case, that's employees, but in other industries it might include physical assets, too. According to the WSJ blog post, nonprofits are embracing the opportunity to receive this resource:"But for now, the public-interest world is loving it. 'It seemed like manna from heaven when law firms approached us about underwriting the costs of having [lawyers] work for us,' says Dinah PoKempner, general counsel of Human Rights Watch."

In talking to my friend, though, a big concern came up. She's worried that this move will create significantly more competition for public interest jobs, and that this will affect her job search. I'm worried about the sustainability factor if her concern is realized.

Let's say that incoming lawyers accept such paid "pro bono" opportunities in significant numbers. In year one, this could be terrific for nonprofits - they get access to a significantly larger talent pool, while law firms shoulder some or all of the burden of paying for it. In year two, though, those attorneys go back to their real jobs. Depending on the state of the economy, the nonprofits might get a new crop of untrained employees, or they might get no one.

Meanwhile, the students who were dedicated to public interest careers all along may have gotten boxed out of nonprofit jobs, because they didn't come with a nice $70,000 subsidy. But these are the lawyers who would have stayed with the nonprofits long-term, rather than taking their knowledge and training with them back to big firms, leaving the nonprofits to train a fresh batch of inexperienced new hires. This just doesn't seem very sustainable.

I absolutely commend businesses that recognize they have assets sitting idle and that work to deploy those resources in a way that serves the community. I think this kind of thinking is the source of a major growth opportunity for corporate community engagement. However, I think we need to give careful thought to how we can implement these programs in a way that is sustainable, that won't leave nonprofits in a lurch when the economy picks up and we can once again fully utilize these assets in our businesses.

Does anyone have thoughts or advice on how we can do this, or examples of companies that are doing it well? Thanks!

Engaging Consumers - Starbucks Shared Planet

2009-03-20T19:03:00.001-04:00

I was in Starbucks earlier today, and saw an poster with this interesting message:

"You.
Work with 1.2 million people to grow and harvest even better coffee that earns even better prices.

Everything we do, you do. You buy coffee at Starbucks. Which means we can work with farmers to help improve their coffee quality and their standard of living. We call it coffee that is responsibly grown and ethically traded. And thanks to you, we've grown big enough to be able to do this kind of good on this kind of scale.

Good job, you."

The poster ended with messaging for the company's "Shared Planet" CSR campaign, with the tagline "You and Starbucks. It's bigger than coffee."

It looks like Starbucks is attempting to engage its consumers in its CSR activities by drawing a clear connection between consumption and the work Starbucks does with coffee farmers. I find this interesting on a few levels. It's great for Starbucks from a business perspective - in the second to last sentence, the company is basically saying that, the more consumers buy, the more good Starbucks can do. For a company that relies on repeat customers, that's a pretty decent sales pitch. Furthermore, in addition to making consumers feel good about buying one more cup of Starbucks coffee, it also educates them about what Starbucks is doing through its CSR program (at a high level), and specifically about what "responsibly grown and ethically traded" means (though the definition isn't very detailed). For a company that makes social responsibility a core part of its brand, it's critical to do this effectively.

One thing I thought was missing from the poster was a call to action. Reading the poster, I found it rousing - it told me how effectively I was enabling Starbucks to have a positive impact on coffee growers. Getting to the end of the poster, though, there was no way for me to have a bigger impact, other than buying another latte.

I checked out the Starbucks Shared Planet website, though, and saw some of my questions answered. The website offers customers the opportunity to pledge to use their own mugs for their Starbucks coffee (4,733 people had done so as of 6:50 today), as well as a "Volunteer to Volunteer" section, where website visitors can learn more about volunteer opportunities. In particular, the Starbucks V2V area of the website, which has a social networking component, is designed to be "a catalyst for conversation and connection that inspires people to contribute to a cause greater than themselves". I didn't, however, find any opportunity to have an impact on the issue highlighted in the poster - improving the quality of living in coffee-growing communities - via this website.

A few days ago, I asked for examples of companies that engage consumers in their CSR activities. This is a very interesting example of such an initiative. I think it has the potential to educate consumers about Starbucks' CSR, thus possibly increasing loyalty; to make customers feel a stronger relationship with the company; and to increase the impact of the company's overall CSR activities. However, this will all depend on how the initiative is executed. The time and effort of Starbucks customers has the potential to be a powerful resource - how will the company deploy it? I look forward to following this initiative, and also to hearing any of your thoughts on this project in the comments section.

Enjoy the weekend!

Putting Employees to Work

2009-03-17T18:52:00.001-04:00

Ever since Google.Org announced its reorganization last month, I've been thinking about the types of resources that companies give away. Basically, companies mostly give away cash, products, or employee resources. Employee resources can be subdivided into time (labor) and talent (expertise). There are a few exceptions (including several detailed in this article that I wrote for onPhilanthropy a few years ago), but most corporate philanthropy (broadly defined) fits into these categories.

Google.Org, in the announcement cited above, suggested that, while it has been pleased with its efforts to support its philanthropic goals via cash donations, it has had the biggest impact when it has donated employee talent. As such, it plans to increase its focus on delivering impact via "engineers and technical talent".

This got me thinking about other companies that really get behind employee engagement as a key part of their philanthropic strategies. Of course, most companies (at least large ones) have volunteerism programs and most make at least some cash donations. However, which companies seek to make a social impact primarily via their employees' skills? What have been the results of these programs?

Thanks so much for your insights!

Engaging Consumers in CSR

2009-03-12T22:56:00.002-04:00

I'm interested in learning more about companies that do a good job of engaging consumers in their CSR programs. This includes companies that effectively increase their social impact by getting their customers to work alongside them toward their goals. It also covers companies that successfully use CSR to foster relationships with their customers, in a way that directly serves their business goals.

Does anyone have good examples of such companies or opinions on this topic? Are there any awards that address these types of strategies or resources I should check out?

I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks!

CRO Magazine's 100 Best Corporate Citizens

2009-03-10T22:54:00.002-04:00

CRO Magazine recently released its annual list of the 100 Best Corporate Citizens. Bristol Myers-Squibb is number one this year - after spending last year in CRO's "Penalty Box". (In fact, five of the 8 company's in last year's Penalty Box are ranked in the top eleven this year.) General Mills, IBM, Merck, and HP rounded out the top five. Intel, Cisco, and Starbucks have all made the list each of the ten years it has been released; they are the only companies to do so.

I find the methodology of the report interesting. According to the company, in its statement accompanying the list, "CRO’s 10th annual 100 Best List (compiled by IW Financial and edited by CRO) is completely based on publicly available information." On the one hand, I'm concerned that publicly available information might not fully represent the companies' corporate citizenship programs. As a corporate philanthropy consultant, I did a lot of benchmarking, and I know that I could get significantly more information talking to company representatives than by looking solely at public sources. That said, this methodology may encourage companies to make more information publicly available.

Perhaps most importantly, CRO also reports that last year, "76 companies that fell short contacted CRO to ask what they needed to do to make the list next year." By establishing criteria for what constitutes good corporate citizenship, CRO establishes best practices, providing a road map that companies can follow in a still-evolving field. By publishing the results of its evaluation in a "100 Best" list, the magazine provokes the competitive instincts of companies seeking to eek out an advantage in competitive markets. As such, this list gives us a snapshot of where we stand today, but it may also help us move forward tomorrow.

Have any of you used this list, or another ranking, to evaluate and improve your programs?

News Update: Conference Board Survey Suggests "Economic Downturn Will Have Major Effects on Corporate Philanthropy"

2009-03-03T23:36:00.002-05:00

Here's another update in our ongoing discussion about the impact of the economic downturn on CSR (or in this case, specifically on corporate philanthropy): Today, The Conference Board released the results of a recent survey, which suggested that the recession will indeed be a blow for corporate philanthropy, from the perspective of quantity. In particular:

45% of survey respondents (corporate giving officers at major U.S. companies) have reduced their 2009 giving budget, while an additional 16% are considering such cuts
35% will reduce the number of grants they make this year, and 22% might do the same
21% will cut the size of their grants, and 27% are considering this option

However, the survey gave me hope that these economic pressures could potentially increase the quality of corporate philanthropy. According to Carolyn Cavicchio, Senior Research Associate, Global Corporate Citizenship, The Conference Board (and, when she ran Changing Our World's Corporate Social Engagement Division, my former boss!), "There is a definite shift toward more critical business issues and an increased emphasis on measuring giving outcomes."

Why is that a good thing? I am a strong believer that corporate philanthropy should be a strategic as possible - and by that I mean, it should be a clear fit with the company's overall business model (just like every other part of the business - the HR strategy, marketing strategy, manufacturing strategy, etc. should also all support the overall corporate goals). The more a company sees a business benefit to corporate philanthropy, and to CSR in general, the more resources it will invest in such programs. (I see some CSR programs - say, employee safety - as a responsibility, rather than merely an opportunity, but to the extent that we can align business goals and social goals, we create more buy-in for CSR.) I also believe CSR should be results-oriented - I want to know, rather than simply believe, that we're having an impact on our goals. That way, if we're not, we can modify our approach.

I'm certainly concerned about the quantitative decline - especially since, as the survey respondents indicated, we're in a time of particularly high need. However, I’m hopeful that corporate philanthropy, and CSR in general, will emerge from the recession a bit stronger than before.

Tech CSR in Emerging Markets - What Would You Ask?

2009-02-26T15:50:00.002-05:00

This Sunday is the Harvard Business School/Harvard Kennedy School Social Enterprise Conference. I've organized a panel on CSR by technology companies in emerging markets ("New Markets, New Approaches: Technology Companies and Corporate Social Responsibility in Emerging Markets"). The panelists include:

Akhtar Badshah, Senior Director, Global Community Affairs, Microsoft Corporation
Robert Richardson, East Coast Education Manager, Intel Massachusetts
Michael Yutrzenka, Executive Director, Cisco Foundation and Director, Public Benefit Investment, Cisco
Chuck Kane, President and Chief Operating Office at One Laptop Per Child
Jane Nelson, Director, CSR Initiative and Senior Fellow, Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government, Harvard Kennedy School (moderator)

Here's the official description: "Technology companies are fully engaged in emerging markets—developing, manufacturing, and selling products in developing economies around the world. Just as in developed markets, these companies recognize a responsibility to their emerging market customers, suppliers, employees, and other stakeholders, and have expanded their corporate social responsibility programs accordingly. Many technology companies seem to approach CSR in emerging markets via strategies and business models that are distinct from their developed market initiatives. Are these emerging markets CSR programs truly unique? If so, why are tech companies taking a different approach in these regions? Are there lessons and strategies that could be imported back into developed markets? This panel will explore successful models of technology company CSR in emerging markets, along with the challenges and limitations that these programs face."

What questions should I make sure get asked during this panel? I'll report back on the conference early next week. If you plan to be there, please let me know!

Is the Recession Good for the Environment?

2009-02-25T20:15:00.001-05:00

In light of the recession, companies are more concerned with finding the cheapest mode of travel than the mode with the smallest carbon footprint. As companies cut their travel budgets, though, will they increasingly turn toward far-greener technological substitutes like webinars and video conferences? Will this be just the push required to get consumers to change their behaviors, allowing these technologies to disrupt the business travel industry?

Last night, I read this article, entitled "Recession May Harm Green Business Travel, Survey Says". The article reports that, according to a recent poll (details in the article), CSR in general will continue to grow, despite the recession, but some specific initiative, including green business travel, are likely to be cut to save money. In particular, "the survey found that 79 percent of companies rate cost-cutting as a high business travel priority this year, versus 17 percent for whom environmentally sustainable travel is a high priority."

Green travel, while not explicitly defined by the article, seems (as one might expect) to include travel decisions made with consideration for carbon emissions, such as choosing high-speed rail over flights. According to the article, it has "has not yet taken hold among a majority of companies". The article quotes Yves Weisselberger, CEO of KDS, an expense management company in Europe, as follows: "At this stage, green travel choices remain scarce and are usually more expensive." He goes on to say, "Longer term, though, the picture is brighter—companies clearly want to do the right thing through CSR, so once the financial premium is erased, or the economy permits, we should expect to see green business travel become far more popular."

I have to say, I was surprised when I saw this article and its gloomy view of the present situation. In the past month or so, I've noticed that the recession has caused a number of companies to institute travel bans. (Here's an article about a decrease in business travel in the UK; if anyone can back up my anecdotal observations about a decrease in business travel in the US, would you please post a comment?) I'm clearly not an expert in carbon footprints, but I feel comfortable concluding that a reduction in travel is better for the environment than a shift toward green travel.

This got me thinking about what companies will use as a substitute for travel. If they had been willing to shell out cash for place tickets in the past, they must have had a job they needed to do - what are they now using to do that job? I bet their solutions will include an increase in the usage of videoconferencing, webinar tools, and similar technological solutions. (In fact, the above article about travel in the UK mentions a rise in video conferences.)

I recently had the opportunity to participate in an online conference/presentation (appropriately, as part of a Proctor & Gamble case competition focusing on sustainability). I have to admit, I was dreading it. The format of the event required each of the five participating teams to present a PowerPoint and video which we'd submitted in advance, and then to go into four or five virtual "breakout rooms" to discuss each presentation in small groups. Between the competing students, the people running the competition, and the P&G executives that were judging us, there must have been at least 25 participants, in literally as many different locations around the country. It just sounded like a recipe for chaos. Instead, I was very pleasantly surprised. The presentations all went smoothly, and in my breakout room, we had a really productive conversation, aided by a "whiteboard" where the moderator could take notes that all of us could see and a polling function. The only equipment we needed to participate was a computer, an internet hookup, and a phone line.

I'm taking a course this semester that's taught by Clayton Christensen, the mind behind the theory of disruptive innovation. As I was thinking through this post, it occurred to me that this is a classic illustration of that theory. I can't do the whole theory justice in this post (I HIGHLY recommend the book The Innovator's Solution, which is the backbone of our class), but here's a short and rough analysis:

Travel is great. It is the best way to do the job that companies need done when they put their employees on planes, trains, and automobiles. That said, it's fairly expensive, so not everyone can travel, and companies won't use travel in every situation - because, in those situations, physical travel over-serves their needs. Tools like webinars and videoconferencing are not great. They simply are not as high quality as truly being in the same room as the people on the other end of the phone line or computer screen. I've certainly observed this myself in my previous role as a consultant - absolutely nothing builds relationships like face-to-face communication. Furthermore, these tools have historically been frustrating, with frozen screens, dropped calls, and other bugs. However, in situations in which travel is too expensive relative to the benefit it offers - that is, when the customer is being over-served by traditional travel, these tools are a great alternative.

The issue is, though, that the current context isn't static - instead, both travel and these travel substitutes are getting better over time. That means that I can fly where I want to go faster, more easily, and generally better. (Well, that's the theory at least - I guess the idea that all companies improve their products on an ongoing basis might not quite take into account increasing security regulations - but think back to travel several decades ago, and this is more or less true.) At the same time, webinars and videoconferencing tools are getting better, too, so that they more and more and more meet my needs. Of course, my own expectations are increasing over time, but not as quickly as the quality of both my travel options and my travel-substitute options.

Someday, the travel-substitutes will meet and then exceed my needs. Real travel will still be better, but since the webinars and videoconferencing will be more than adequate, while at the same time cheaper, why would I bother to get on a plane? Webinars and videoconferencing will have successfully disrupted physical travel.

In reality, of course, it might not be quite so simple. There will always be reasons that I might want to be someplace in person. In general, though, I buy into this theory enough to believe that technological substitutes for physical travel will certainly steal market share from real travel in the long run. With the same disclaimer that I couldn't tell you the carbon footprint of a webinar, I can only imagine that this would be a strongly positive change for the environment.

So what does any of this have to do with the recession and the article about green travel? My number one takeaway from my introductory marketing class last year was this: It's really, really, really hard to get consumers to change their behavior. You might have a product that would seriously benefit them, but if it doesn't fit into the way they currently live their lives, you have a major uphill battle to get them to adopt it.

To illustrate this concept, I'll go back to my experience in the case competition. I didn't want to use the online tool. I wanted to just stand up in front of the room, make my presentation, and meet in a real breakout room with people who were really there with me, just like I've done in the past. When I was forced to adopt this new technology, though, I found that it met my needs, and I would absolutely use it again.

If the recession is forcing companies to cut their travel budgets, it may be the push they need to adopt technologies that substitute for travel - the push they need to change entrenched behaviors. In fact, in researching this post, I came across this article from 2003, when we were emerging from the last recession. The article reports that airlines were likely to benefit from the economic recovery, but that "it may not deliver the rebound in business-travel spending they wish for", because companies were likely to continue to use cost-cutting measures they had adopted in the face of the recession, including video and web conferences.

If this theory pans out, the recession may be just the jumpstart needed not for green travel, but for green travel substitutes.

Google.Org Announcement

2009-02-24T13:30:00.002-05:00

Does Google.Org's announcement really represent a big change for the organization? Does it matter if the entity invests in non- or for-profits, and can it be successful doing both at once? Is it fair to criticize Google for taking a "business approach to philanthropy"?

Google.Org has announced a reorganization, in the wake of a review of its operations. According to Dr. Larry Brilliant's post yesterday on the Google.Org blog, he will move on from running the company's philanthropic arm to become Chief Philanthropy Evangelist, while Megan Smith, Vice President of New Business Development, will take responsibility for managing Google.Org (in addition to her current role).

While I'm intrigued by the leadership change (I've long believed there's a strong fit between business development, which is all about relationships with external actors, and strategic CSR, which is typically executed via partnerships), I'm most interested in the following piece of Brilliant's statement:

"During our review it became clear that while we have been able to support some remarkable non-profit organizations over the past three years, our greatest impact has come when we've attacked problems in ways that make the most of Google's strengths in technology and information; examples of this approach include Flu Trends, RechargeIT, Clean Energy 2030, and PowerMeter. By aligning Google.org more closely with Google as a whole, Megan will ensure that we're better able to build innovative, scalable technology and information solutions. As a first step, Google has decided to put even more engineers and technical talent to work on these issues and problems, resources which I have found to be extraordinary."

A New York Times article interpreted this announcement to mean that Brilliant "signaled that Google.org might curtail its financing of nonprofit groups unless they are closely aligned with Google projects" and said that the "announcement represents a shift in Google’s approach to philanthropy". I'm not sure I agree this is actually a major change. Of course, the reporter may have had access to information that I don't have, but the article indicates that no Google executives were willing to comment, so I'm assuming he came to that conclusion based only on the text of the blog post.

Instead, it sounds to me like Google.Org is continuing on with what it's always sought to do - utilize the company's unique assets to address social issues. Many companies have money (perhaps less right now), and this is certainly an asset they can deploy. However, they have unique access to their employees' skills, their products, and their proprietary technology and information. Anyone can give money, but Google is one of the very few entities that can, for instance, track flu outbreaks before they hit hospitals or help citizens visualize the impact of environmental disasters half a world away. I think Google has always tried to do this - I read this announcement as a reaffirmation of that goal, and perhaps an indication that the organization thinks it needs to do a better job of this, but I don't think this is a major change in how Google.Org does business.

I really don't care if the projects Google.Org invests in are for- or non-profit. It sounds like Google has found that, to date, the projects where it has made the biggest impact have been for-profit initiatives. I don't know if that's just been how it's happened to play out, or if Google is, for some reason, better equipped to make a difference via for-profit initiatives. It doesn't sound like the organization knows that, either - it sounds like its employees have just observed that, empirically, they've worked well with for-profits in the past. Going forward, Google.Org should certainly focus its activities on the initiatives where it expects to make the greatest impact.

The one red flag I do see here (if, in fact, Google.Org is considering moving more towards for-profit initiatives, as the New York Times article implies) is that it's easy to see an organization's tax status as a defining characteristic of that organization, and in many cases, this isn't the case. If Google.Org's goal is to earn a financial return while also having a positive impact, then of course they should focus their funding on for-profit initiatives. However, if their goal is to reinvent the energy infrastructure or change the way people in emerging markets access information (which may provide financial benefits to Google in the long run), I hope they focus on the operations of prospective partners, not their financing decisions.

That said, I'm not sure how easy it is to structure and staff an organization so that it is good at both for- and non-profit investing. In my experience as both a grantmaker directing funding to nonprofits and an MBA student evaluating prospective for-profit investments, I'd say that while the required skill sets are absolutely closely related, they're not identical. While the same person can certainly develop both skill-sets, the terrific grantmaker and the wonderful investor may not always be the same person. What organizations do both of these things well, and how are they structured and staffed to make this possible?

Getting back to the New York Times article, though, I was especially interested in these few lines:

"The company has drawn criticism for relying to much on a business approach to philanthropy and on a belief that engineering could be applied to solve the world’s problems.

'They are doubling down on the technocratic approach,' said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of media studies and law at the University of Virginia, who is writing a book about Google. 'The habits and ideology of the company will lead the philanthropy rather than the needs of the communities or the planet.'"

I really take issue with the idea that someone would criticize the company for taking "a business approach to philanthropy" or for allowing "the habits and ideology of the company" to "lead the philanthropy". At the end of the day, Google is a company. The founders are very committed to using that company to making a positive difference in the world, and that's terrific. However, at the end of the day, they serve at the pleasure of the shareholders, and for Google.Org to be sustainable - for it to last through the many leadership changes that are sure to come in the future - it has to connect back not just to the "needs of the communities or the planet", but also to the needs of the company.

Furthermore, by taking a "business approach to philanthropy" and by using engineering "to solve the world's problems", Google.Org is utilizing its unique assets. I don't know whether Google thinks that engineering is the one true way to save the world - I think it's a little far-fetched to believe that anyone would think there's just one solution to the world's myriad problems. However, I completely agree that engineering (and the other skills offered by Google employees) are certainly the best way for Google to address social problems. As a result, I'm really glad that the company continues to integrate Google.Org into Google.

Corporate Philanthropy Day Video

2009-02-24T12:38:00.001-05:00

Yesterday's Board of Boards conference was closed to the public and the press, but you can get a little taste of it in this video from MSNBC - it's a conversation about corporate philanthropy and the recession, featuring Tom Brokaw, Angela Braly (President, CEO, & Director of WellPoint), and Alan Hassenfeld (Director and former Chairman & CEO of Hasbro), all of whom were expected to participate in the event.

Even more interesting - I got to the video via a post on www.barackchangeobama.com, billed as "The Unofficial Website of Barack Obama: The Change We Need".

Happy Corporate Philanthropy Day

2009-02-23T22:47:00.001-05:00

Today, February 23, is International Corporate Philanthropy Day, as promoted by the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy. Through this day, according to a CECP fact sheet, the organization seeks to celebrate corporate philanthropy while raising awareness of the "benefits of corporate community investment" and encouraging the business community to invest further in philanthropy. The day's events include the annual Board of Boards conference, which brings together CEOs from major companies to discuss corporate philanthropy and an event with the UN on the role of companies in furthering the Millennium Development Goals.

I am particularly interested in today's fourth annual Board of Boards event, which is aimed specifically at CEOs and Chairpersons. This year, Tom Brokaw was scheduled moderate a discussion with Carlos Ghosn, president and CEO of Nissan, and Jeffery Immelt, CEO of GE, and the event was to conclude with lunch with Bill Clinton. Top executives from over 50 companies were expected to participate, including Dan Doctoroff, President of Bloomberg; E. Neville Isdell, Chairman of Coca-Cola; Terry J. Lundgren, Chairman, President &CEO of Macy's; and Ivan G. Seidenberg, Chairman & CEO of Verizon.

I don't know of any similar events that engage CEOs to address not just corporate philanthropy, but CSR more broadly. Is there in fact such an event or initiative? If not, should there be? I tend to think that engaging top leaders in CSR initiatives (including corporate philanthropy) is a critical way to infuse CSR throughout the organization. A mid-level executive charged exclusively with addressing CSR may have a hard time convincing the manufacturing department of the need to reduce its environmental footprint or the purchasing group of the importance of sourcing from ethically responsible suppliers; in such an organization, CSR is too easily corralled into its own little world. When the CEO is engaged, however, he or she has influence over all of these groups and can ensure that CSR goes from "nice to have" to part of how the company does business. In addition, an event like the Board of Boards conference provides an opportunity not just to influence the assembled CEOs, but to use their collective influence and insight to influence the field of CSR.

If you were to design an event or initiative to engage CEOs in CSR, what would it look like? What benefits would such an event bring? (For instance, I imagine that the CECP event helps raise the visibility of corporate philanthropy on the participating CEOs' agendas, creates a bit of peer pressure to keep up with all of the well-known companies that participate, provides an opportunity to demonstrate to these CEOs directly the positive impact that corporate philanthropy can have on a company, and energizes the participants to increase the impact of their own community engagement.) What other ways would you seek to engage CEOs, and how might you use the collective influence of the participating CEOs to further the field of CSR?

News Update: Macy's

2009-02-19T17:22:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, I asked for examples of companies that are making changes to their CSR programs in light of the recession. Today, the San Francisco Chronicle's SFGate.com website posted this article about the changes Macy's is making to its community involvement activities in that city. These changes come in the wake of news that it will close its Macy's West division this spring, shrinking from 1,400 to 125 headquarters employees in San Francisco. (Here's an article from SFGate that gives some background on the cuts Macy's is making.)

According to the article, the company expects to maintain its commitment to "several high-profile community events", like the annual Passport fashion show, which raises funds to fight HIV/AIDS; the remaining San Francisco employees will also continue to run cause marketing initiatives. On the other hand, thanks to the steep staff reduction, local nonprofits are likely to see a major decrease in employee giving and volunteer hours.

I find it really interesting that the company isn't explicitly making cuts to its community involvement programs, but that such a decrease will be a byproduct of staffing cuts. I imagine this is true in any community that has seen significant layoffs - and as a result, the communities that are hardest hit by this downturn may also be those with the biggest reduction in capacity to deal with it.

Examples Needed

2009-02-18T21:55:00.000-05:00

I've posted a few times recently about theories - mine and other peoples' - of how companies are likely to adjust their CSR in light of the economic climate. I'd now like to move beyond the hypothetical to dig up some empirical examples. Can anyone pass on information about companies taking any of the following actions?

Cutting back on CSR activities in recent months

Stepping up CSR commitments

Not making any changes, but discussing the economy in their rationale for maintaining their program (e.g., saying they are facing tough times but are maintaining their commitment due to significant need in the community or citing a positive impact on their core business)

I really appreciate any examples you can provide - if you don't want to post here, feel free to email me at ReimagingCSR (at) gmail (dot) com.

Thanks!

CSR and the Obama Administration?

2009-02-13T17:44:00.002-05:00

Last month, the Social Investment Forum sent a pair of letters (here and here) to the Obama Administration, asking the administration to establish an Office for Innovation in Corporate Social Responsibility. The SIF suggests that such an office would "pursue policies and initiatives to strengthen the CSR commitments of the private sector" and lead the business sector in integrating best practices in CSR into their own operations; it also believes this office could improve sustainability across the government's own agencies.

There are certainly reasons that this sounds like a great idea. It would bring attention to the issue of CSR, and, as long as Obama remains popular, his endorsement is likely to have a positive effect on the cause of improving or increasing CSR. I also believe that increased sharing of best practices is a great thing.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced that the government is the entity that we want to take on this role. Is the SIF asking for increased regulation of CSR (either telling companies to carry out more CSR or telling them how to do so), and is that a good thing? I'm not sure. What, exactly, do we expect that regulation would add? What might it take away?

One question I'd want to consider, before deciding whether I want to see regulation on this issue, is whether we're still in the phase of figuring out how to do CSR well, or whether we're in the phase of codifying proven practices. If we're in the latter phase, I can understand the argument that, since we know what we need to do to produce good results, regulation is a way to get these practices into as many companies as possible. But if we're in the former phase, we probably DON'T want the government to regulate CSR - we want to see different companies take on different approaches, so we can see what works. (Of course, there are some activities that indeed must be, and are, regulated, which I might group into the CSR sphere - use of child labor, etc. )

If the SIF isn't talking about regulation, and instead imagines that this office would play a positive, "carrot" role in fostering CSR, then I'm curious about whether the government is indeed the actor that is best suited to carry out this role. There are certainly incentives for fostering CSR that only the government can carry out - tax incentives, for instance. When we're talking about promoting best practices, though, can industry associations and other non- or for-profits carry this out just as easily as the government can, and are they doing so already?

Finally, I was generally impressed by the long list of people and organizations that signed the letter. More than 50 people signed on, both from the US and from abroad, representing "the fields of socially responsible investing, international relief, development, human rights, environmental stewardship and faith based investing." They include representatives of Calvert Group, Ceres, Domini Social Investments, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, Oxfam America, and many others. But I didn't see a single representative from a major company that is actually implementing CSR activities. There were a lot of people who advise on, evaluate, and invest based on other companies' CSR efforts, but no actual practitioners. Is that just because such practitioners aren't part of SIF's core constituency, or is this not in the interest of large companies that practice CSR?

Trust in Corporations

2009-02-12T18:56:00.002-05:00

Forbes has published two articles recently that reference CSR; interestingly, both are primarily about citizens' trust in corporations (or lack thereof). One, published last week, focuses on the erosion of goodwill towards corporations in the wake of the recession. It reports on a survey that said one in three respondents believes corporations are primarily responsible for the recession (46% primarily blame governments), and on another study that found that people are increasingly likely to say that companies make too much profit (59% of respondents) and too few big companies have too much power (70%). The article argues that, in this environment, CSR is important. The other, published this week, centers on Asia; it says that “trust in business wavers” and encourages “private sector diplomacy” - that is, public/private partnerships that address “the region’s most pressing problems”.

I've been thinking a lot recently about the economy and it's impact on CSR. Of course, many of us are concerned that, as companies seek to eliminate spending wherever possible, they'll cut the resources that sustain their CSR programs. On the other hand, on this blog, we've discussed some reasons that this in fact might not happen: At the Conference Board's recent conference on corporate citizenship, various panelists suggested that CSR should increase now because there's an increased need for it, or that cutting back on CSR damages trust. Reimagining CSR reader Elisabeth commented on a previous post that CSR initiatives can be leveraged "to sustain and even build brand equity in challenging times", while the Ethical Corporation Blog argues, "There is opportunity to gain trust.... Showing you can treat your customers, suppliers and business partners fairly, even when times are right, may help you build that bank account of goodwill, useful when you really need it. "

By the logic of the Forbes articles, I come to the following rationale (partially overlapping with those offered by Elisabeth and the Ethical Corporation blog) for redoubling CSR efforts in light of the economy: The recession - or, more specifically, major corporations' perceived role in sparking the recession - has led to an erosion of trust in companies; engaging in CSR, on the other hand, can help to restore that trust.

If the issue of trust links the recession and corporate citizenship, should we in fact expect to see an increase in CSR efforts?

News Update - Microsoft Launches Environmental Sustainability Dashboard

2009-02-10T01:57:00.003-05:00

Microsoft has just announced the release of an Environmental Sustainability Dashboard for Microsoft Dynamics. Dynamics is a set of software products designed for businesses; specifically, it offers "financial, customer relationship and supply chain management solutions". The general selling point is that Dynamics "helps businesses work more effectively".

The Environmental Sustainability Dashboard, like the rest of Dynamics, helps a company track its operations, but in this case, it focuses on inputs and outputs related to the environment. It tracks what the company is using up and what it is releasing, enabling the company to cut back. (In more detail: According to Microsoft's press release, this product "will enable midsize businesses to capture data needed to measure key indicators related to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions as part of everyday business processes from within their enterprise resource planning solution, helping them pinpoint ways to cut their energy consumption and costs.")

I find this announcement interesting for two reasons. First, this is business. Microsoft is doing this not through a philanthropic arm, but through a business unit. It is selling the product not to its customers' CSR groups, but to the people that manage finances and customer relationships and supply chains - the business processes that keep companies going. Of course, these two motivations certainly are not incompatible - in fact, the press release cites a Forrester Research poll finding that 55% of IT procurement and operational professionals (presumable a close match with this product's target market) want to cut energy costs, while 50% want to do "the right thing for the environment".

Second, I'm struck by the fact that the product is targeted at midsized businesses. We don't hear all that much about CSR at midsized companies. Is that because the CSR initiatives aren't there (at least at a newsworthy scale), because the smaller companies can't (or don't feel the need to) communicate their initiatives, or simply because I haven't been paying attention? In the press release, Kirill Tatarinov, corporate vice president, Microsoft Business Solutions, suggests it may be the former: "In many cases, midsize organizations can't retain dedicated consultants to audit their environmental performance. By integrating groundbreaking environmental performance management capabilities with Microsoft Dynamics AX, we are bringing that critical information directly to customers as part of their everyday business management."

So will the Environmental Sustainability Dashboard push sustainability initiatives down into smaller companies, that couldn't afford to take on this challenge in the past? If so, is this an innovation that could potentially have a major impact on who has the "luxury" to commit to CSR? Or am I failing to give midsized companies the credit they deserve?

Company CSR Blogs

2009-02-05T20:30:00.001-05:00

I'm really interested in blogs that companies write about their own CSR activities. With such activities buried deep inside an array of different departments, it can be hard to understand how CSR at a given company works and how the company thinks about these activities. Granted, corporate blogs aren't exactly unfiltered, but I wish more companies wrote their own - I think it would really further the conversation about what we're all doing and where we're going. As far as I can tell, though, only a very small number do so.

Here's a list of the CSR blogs, written by companies about their own activities, that I'm aware of - if you know of any others, please help me add to the list! Thanks!

Google
McDonald's
Intel
FedEx
Hewlett-Packard

News Update - CSR and the Economy

2009-02-04T01:27:00.002-05:00

Over the course of the last few days, I've done some thinking and writing about the economy and CSR. Today, I decided to research what other bloggers and reporters are saying about the topic. In general, I continue to be optimistic about the future of this field, as several sources recommended that companies refrain from cutting back on CSR or reported that, empirically, this seems to be the trend. Some interesting articles on this topic are below:

Fortune reports, "...A surprising number of companies see corporate responsibility as all the more important given the financial crunch, even as they reduce spending elsewhere in their businesses."
On CauseGlobal, Marcia Stepanek writes about a new report by Trendwatching.com; she talks about consumer expectations, formed in part by the recession, that companies should be generous and highlights opportunities this creates for both companies and social entrepreneurs. (I'm interested in the fact that, while some of the examples listed are certainly traditional CSR or corporate philanthropy programs, some involve generosity from the company directly to the consumer. Does this have implications for traditional conceptions of CSR? For instance, does it mean that consumers are less concerned about a company's impact - i.e., social change - and more concerned about its values - which might be displayed by helping the relatively-fortunate consumer just as easily as by helping those with less?)
onPhilanthropy's Shikha Dalah considers corporate philanthropy and the pressures it is under in this economy; she comes to a conclusion similar to my position in yesterday's post: "Ultimately, the more integrated philanthropy is into the business, the greater chance it has to be able to achieve maximum impact even in the midst of changing economic circumstances." She also shares takeaways on this topic from a panel of corporate philanthropy executives at a recent Columbia Business School Alumni Club of New York event. (I used to write for onPhilanthropy.com, where I also served as Corporate Philanthropy Editor.)
At FT.com, Stefan Stern takes a different perspective: "Now the recession's here we can forget all that nonsense about corporate social responsibility (CSR) and get back to trying to make some money."
Dinda Elliott, in Condé Nast Traveler's Daily Traveler blog, considers CSR programs among travel-industry companies and wonders whether companies will remain committed to such programs in the face of economic difficulties. While industry executives report that they will indeed maintain their social responsibility initiatives, Elliott is concerned that only programs with a direct link to the bottom line (e.g., energy conservation) will be maintained. (In the context of my post yesterday, might this in fact suggest that threatened programs have not been properly embedded in the business model?)
In October, Ethical Corporation took on this issue in a blog post, articulating 10 reasons to continue on with CSR programs during a recession. While the post is a few months old, it does a good job of laying out a number of key points on this side of the debate.

Responsibility & Recession

2009-02-03T02:00:00.002-05:00

What are the major issues CSR practitioners are thinking about as they predict the impact of the recession on this field? What kinds of social responsibility programs are companies most likely to maintain in the face of financial pressures?

As you can probably guess, business school students talk a lot about the current economic situation. It comes up in the classroom, in speeches by visiting business leaders, and certainly in conversations about the job search. Somehow, though, I don't think I fully grasped how big this is until I was in New York last week for the Conference Board's 2009 Leadership Conference on Global Corporate Citizenship.

In the city where so much of this started, the financial crisis dominated conversations of all sorts. At dinner with a friend who works in investment banking, we talked about how many of her coworkers have been laid off recently. Over lunch with a former colleague, we discussed the impact on the nonprofit sector. At the conference itself, as I mentioned in my post on Thursday, the impact of the economic crisis on corporate social responsibility was a major theme.

Over the course of the next few months, I plan to explore the implications of the current economy on corporate social responsibility, for the purpose of understanding what we can expect in this sector over the next few years. I also think that studying how companies react to these trying circumstances helps us to understand the role that CSR plays within their organizations - for instance, are these programs a "nice to have" that can easily be cut back, or are they truly integrated into the business model?

Attending the Leadership Conference on Global Corporate Citizenship was a very helpful way of diving into this big question. The conference was attended largely by high-level CSR practitioners who spend their time dealing with these issues, so I found it illuminating to hear what they're thinking.

The major perspectives that I heard, on the question of how the economic crisis will impact CSR, included the following:

We should indeed expect to see some "CSR attrition"
With so many people negatively impacted by the recession, CSR is more necessary now than ever
The political climate and President Obama's message of responsibility make this the time to focus on CSR
If CSR is actually part of a company's culture, its employees will find a way to keep going, despite the external context
Pulling back from CSR initiatives during bad times destroys trust
The recession will provide an opportunity to differentiate between companies that truly believe in CSR and those who "pay lip service" or are just in it for the good PR - and this revelation may have long-term consequences

I find this last notion particularly intriguing, because I don't agree with the apparent underlying assumptions. There's certainly something satisfying about the logic - the idea that a company would capitalize on a social problem to generate good press, only to turn its back on the cause just when its involvement is needed most, does indeed feel a bit sleazy. Ultimately, though, do the company's motivations for engaging in CSR truly matter?

Here's what I want to see in a CSR initiative - I want to see a program that's embedded in the business. I want to see a program that really and truly is win-win, so that it doesn't rely on good intentions for its continued survival. Maybe the company in question has designed an environmental program that really does decrease costs, for example, or maybe it has engaged with suppliers in developing economies on programs that both improve the quality of the product and the suppliers' quality of life.

Sure, it's great if a business leader has a sense of responsibility to the world around him, if she believes that improving lives through better business practices is simply the right thing to do. I can imagine that such a leader could come up with some pretty amazing programs. But when the next CEO comes along (or maybe the next recession), which programs are most likely to be preserved, the ones that the previous leader "truly believed in" or the ones with a clear benefit to the company?

The recession might indeed provide an opportunity to differentiate between companies that truly believe in CSR and those who are in it for the business benefit - because by my logic, it's the latter group that will choose to continue their programs. Of course, these motivations aren't mutually exclusive, and "good PR", while certainly a business benefit, may be less compelling than benefits that can be more clearly tied to the bottom line. Furthermore, this assumes a basic set of ethics and a legal framework that do not rely on business benefit (i.e., prohibitions on child labor should not have to rely on a business case for why they make sense economically).

I hope I don't sound cynical, because the overall message I got from the conference, on the issue of CSR and the economy, was definitely optimistic. Generally, the participants seemed to see a strong future for CSR, not just in spite of the economy, but perhaps even because of it. This sentiment was best captured in closing remarks by David Vidal, Research Director, Global Corporate Citizenship at the Conference Board. By using this recession as an impetus for identifying future opportunities and redefining the field's objectives, he told us, "Let's not waste this crisis."

2009 Leadership Conference on Global Corporate Citizenship

2009-01-29T23:15:00.002-05:00

I spent today at the Conference Board's 2009 Leadership Conference on Global Corporate Citizenship. After a year and a half as a student, it was great to get back into the professional world and hear what CSR practitioners are talking about these days. Some of the day's major themes included the following:

Making the business case for CSR
Definitions - are sustainability, CSR, etc. all the same thing? What's included in and what's excluded from the definitions? Does it matter?
Environmental concerns - especially water and energy
Government regulations and their relationship to corporate engagement
Collaboration among competitors (i.e., industry initiatives)
Public/private partnerships

Perhaps most of all, though, the current economic environment came up again and again. Will we see "CSR attrition" in the coming months? Does the bad economy mean that companies, facing low profits, should back off from CSR for awhile? Or does increased need suggest that this is the time to step up such commitments?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I did recently read an article that addresses this debate through the metaphor of soccer. While I never played soccer, I found the framework both insightful and accessible. The article was written by Shankar Venkateswaran last June, before we really knew how bad it would get, and he's talking specifically about Indian companies, but it's just as relevant here (wherever that may be) and now.

Over the next few days, I'll be writing about the conference and the issues raised above. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy reading about responsibility and recessions through the lens of strikers and full-backs!

Welcome to Reimagining CSR!

2009-01-28T22:55:00.000-05:00

This blog will explore innovations and trends in corporate social responsibility, with an emphasis on initiatives that serve both a social impact motive and a profit motive. For instance, I'm very interested in the overlapping worlds of creative capitalism, business at the base of the pyramid, cause marketing, for-profit social enterprise, and so on.

My name is Jessica Stannard-Friel, and I'm currently in my last semester of the MBA program at Harvard Business School. Prior to grad school, I worked for several years as a corporate philanthropy consultant; in that capacity, I helped companies to be more strategic and more effective in their social engagement activities. I deepened that experience by spending last summer working for a corporate foundation. Through this blog, I hope to layer together my work experience with the perspective I've gained in my MBA classes.

I hope that this blog will become a dialogue. In my posts, I plan to draw on sources including conversations with practitioners, books, articles, and conferences, but I think your comments and feedback could be the richest source of learning for me. Please don't hesitate to share your thoughts on these issues or your ideas for this blog by commenting or emailing me at ReimaginingCSR (at) gmail (dot) com.

As I consider where to go with this blog, I would really appreciate your feedback. In particular:

What are the major challenges currently facing the field of CSR? (e.g., difficulty measuring social and business impact)
What are the major unresolved conflicts in this field? (e.g., the ethics of making money by addressing social problems)
What are the major books, articles, websites, and other resources that a CSR practitioner must be aware of in order to be educated about this field?

If you have any thoughts on these questions, please comment - thank you!