B C O R P S

Issue 1 | Spring 2016

The rise in the B Corp

community and what it means

for the future of corporate

social responsibility

T R E N D S I N C S R

An in-depth debate about the

benefits and disadvantages of

corporate social responsibility

E M P L O Y E E

E N G A G M E N T

Not just a buzz word. How

companies like Dell are

revolutionizing employee

engagement in CSR

The Evolution of CSR

MEET THE CSIC STUDENT EDITORIAL BOARDERICA BACA

Erica Baca is a student in Georgetown University’s master of professional studies in Integrated Marketing Communications and works in development in the Washington, DC fundraising office for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Prior to St. Jude, Erica worked for the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and taught English in Lille, France. Erica graduated from American University with a major in Public Communications and a minor in French Studies. She lives in Washington, DC with her husband and Chihuahua-Ter-rier named Cabo. Erica is a representative of the Integrated Marketing Communications program on CSIC’s Student Editorial Board. You can follow Erica on LinkedIn and Twitter @erica_m_baca.

Brynn Biddle is a student in Georgetown University’s master of professional studies in Integrated Marketing Communications. Brynn just completed a semester long internship at KRC Re-search, a sister company to Weber Shandwick. Prior to moving to moving to DC to pursue her masters, Brynn worked in corporate social responsibility for Microsoft and in marketing for Susan G. Komen. With a breadth of experience in the corporate social responsibility space, Brynn is thrilled to be serving on the Student Editorial Board for the Center for Social Impact Communications. Brynn is a representative of the Integrated Marketing Communications program on CSIC’s Student Editorial Board. Connect with Brynn on Linkedin.

BRYNN BIDDLE

VASSILIS COUTIFARIS SARA DAL LAGO

DANIELLA KEITH KEVON PAYNTER

ADITYA VEERA DEEMA ZEIN

Vassilis Coutifaris is a student in Georgetown University’s executive master of professional studies in Global Strategic Com-munications and is a Foreign Policy Program Manager at The Brookings Institution. Vassilis is a representative of the Global Strategic Communications program on CSIC’s Student Editorial Board.

Sara Dal Lago is a international student in Georgetown Uni-versity’s master of professional studies in Public Relations and Corporate Communications. Currently, she is working as an intern for the Social Impact team at Weber Shandwick, working at the intersection of CSR, sustainability, and social impact Prior to moving to Washington D.C., she worked at a sales marketing agency in Munich, Germany. She speaks five foreign languages and is very passionate about cross-cultural and international communications practices in general. Sara is a representative of the Public Relations and Corporate Communica-tions program on CSIC’s Student Editorial Board. Connect with Sara on Linkedin or on Twitter @saradallago.

Daniella Keith is a student in Georgetown University’s executive masters of professional studies in Global Strategic Communi-cations. She is a Communications and P.R. specialist with five years of experience in the non-profit sector. Her previous work includes the Costa Rican Investment Promotion Agency, a Costa Rican organization that promotes economic development through the attraction of foreign direct investment, and the Im-pact Hub Minneapolis, an innovation incubator for social collaboration. She currently resides in Minneapolis and holds bachelor’s degree in International Affairs and Italian from American University in Washington, D.C. Daniella is a representative of the Glob-al Strategic Communications program on CSIC’s Student Editorial Board.

Kevon Paynter is a student in Georgetown University’s master of professional studies in Journalism. Kevon is a representative of the Journalism program on CSIC’s Student Editorial Board. Connect with Kevon on LinkedIn.

Aditya Veera is a student in Georgetown University’s masters of professional studies in Public Relations and Corporate Commu-nications. He is a communications professional with internation-al consulting experience. He has helped small and medium busi-nesses in the Middle East tell a compelling and authentic story to source capital. Adi is also an ambassador for the PRCC program, and a member of the PRSA. Within the social impact space, Adi is interested in the way corporations are constantly reinventing CSR. Adi is a represen-tative of the PRCC program on CSIC’s Student Editorial Board. He is always keen to learn from fellow communication professionals – connect with him on LinkedIn.

Deema Zein is a student in Georgetown University’s master of professional studies in Journalism program. Deema is a repre-sentative of the Journalism program on CSIC’s Student Editorial Board. Connect with Deema on LinkedIn.

2

Integrated Marketing Communications Integrated Marketing Communications

Global Strategic Communications Public Relations & Corporate Communications

Global Strategic Communications Journalism

Public Relations & Corporate Communications Journalism

About CSICThe Center for Social Impact Communication at Georgetown University (CSIC) is a research and action center dedi-cated to increasing social impact through the power of communicators. Launched in 2008, CSIC aims to educate and inspire socially responsible communicators and marketers within Georgetown University through innovative courses and engagement opportunities.

A LETTER FROM CSIC’S DEPUTY DIRECTOR

What you hold in your hands is a labor of love.

The Evolution of CSR magazine is the result of the collective brainpower – not to mention heart – of eight smart, socially-impact minded students from across Georgetown University’s graduate division of professional commu-nications.

The magazine is a manifestation of the big thinking from current (not to mention, future) leaders within the corporate social responsibility (CSR) field: communicators, marketers and journalists who believe that the private sector can be a force for good in the world when organizational strategy and communication – in its many forms – collides with genuine altruism.

Georgetown University’s Center for Social Impact (CSIC) is about encouraging and activating this collision – es-pecially through the integrated lenses of marketing, communication and journalism. We couldn’t have asked for a more spirited student editorial board to make that vision come alive.

From a spirited debate about the hottest trends in CSR from Aditya Veera and Sara Dal Lago, two students within our public relations and corporate communications program, to a video about the power of virtual reality story-telling from journalism student Kevon Paynter, The Evolution of CSR tracks the past, present and future of the rapidly evolving sector.

Let us know what you think about the magazine by emailing us at csic@georgetown.edu.

Happy reading!

John TrybusDeputy Director, CSIC

3

The largest companies in the technology space by market capitalization are Apple and Google. They have a combined market value, at the time of writing, of over $1.1 trillion dollars. Let’s put that number in con-text. If we sold just these two companies and distrib-uted the proceeds to the entire population of the US, each person would receive $3,500. That’s more than 5% of the wages the average American earns in a year. With great value comes great corporate social respon-sibility. Not only are these companies expected to lead the pack in financial results, but other companies will look to them as an example to follow in CSR practic-es. What makes their CSR programs unique? Let’s ex-amine the lessons Apple and Google have to offer.

1 . Tackle big problems and causes.

Problems like climate change and environmental deg-radation are big and complicated, with no easy solu-tion in sight. Big companies ought to have the imagi-nation, vision and grit to take on the greatest problems we face – in addition to tackling small local issues too. And it’s not enough to have a position: the most ef-fective advocacy is action. Putting money, time and human capital into solving the problem is critical. .

HOW TO DO CSR

T H E

T E C H

W A Y

b y A D I V E E R A

Apple makes a correspondingly bold statement: “We don’t want to debate climate change. We want to stop it.” Even though Apple is manufacturing and shipping more products than ever, its carbon emissions per product have been drop-ping since 2011. Moreover, 100% of Apple’s US operations run on renewable energy, while 87% of global operations run on renewable energy. Apple has partnered with the Conser-vation Fund to create and protect forests. Moreover, Apple has an extensive reuse and recycle program that applies not only to its own manufacturing facilities, but also to those of its suppliers. What’s most revolutionary is that green prac-tices are embedded early in the product design process, fore-seeing opportunities to recycle and reuse. Suppliers are held accountable through factory audits and component testing.

2. Integrate corporate social responsibility initia-

tives into products or core business.

Did you know that for every mile you drive with a car, you con-sume enough energy to power the provision of Google services to one individual for a month? We should all just use Google and stop driving! But seriously, the company has done a fan-tastic job with data centers that save energy, as well as buying and investing in green power initiatives to reduce power usage.

Apple integrates respect for human rights into its supply chain. In 2014, Apple conducted over 600 in-person audits of labor practices along its supply chain across 19 countries. It part-ners with its suppliers to reduce non-compliance with Apple’s standards, which span labor human rights, health and safety, environment, management systems and ethics. In rewarding new business, Apple takes audit scores into consideration, and when working with new suppliers, it conducts detailed risk assessments. In 2014, Apple reviewed 459 suppliers and factored their responsibility performance into business deci-

4

sions. Apple also works on location with suppliers to help them address labor and human rights issues before they surface.

3. Reduce a complex and fuzzy problem to a con-crete and measurable goal.

Facing the problem of climate change, Google reduced the problem to a clear goal: Let’s be carbon neutral. Let’s contribute zero to climate change. Thinking out-side the box is the norm for Googlers, and carbon neu-trality is no exception. The organization has pursued a number of carbon offsets, including paying landfills and livestock farms near data centers to reduce emissions.

Once accused of unfair and abusive labor practices, Apple reduced a seemingly uncon-trollable issue (how suppliers treat their workers across a globally diffused supply chain) to a controllable prob-lem by conducting audits and part-nering with sup-pliers to correct violations. By cre-ating uniform labor and environmental standards suppliers could be held accountable to, Apple clarified not only its own ethical position, but also made compliance easier for suppliers. For example, by stipulating a maximum 60-hour workweek, Apple was able to generate 92% supplier com-pliance with this guideline. (With non-compliant suppliers, Apple continues to assist them towards compliance). Not only are the guidelines available to all suppliers, but Ap-ple publishes them on its site for the whole world to see.

4. Go beyond expectations.

Though its carbon footprint – once you ac-count for carbon offsets and its use of renewable energy – is zero, Google wants to do more. It has invested more than $2 billion in renewable energy projects tthat create more energy than Google consumes as a company. These include

investments in 2.9 GW (equivalent to the electricity usage of 500,000 homes) of large-scale wind and rooftop solar.

Moreover, Google products help customers cut energy usage. Google Maps, for example, directs cyclists in over 200 US cities, Canada, Australia and 12 countries in Eu-rope. People can get detailed bike trail information they can use to get to their destination. Maps also enables use of public transit by providing live data people can use to plan their routes, stops, schedule and fares. Navigation in Maps reduces driving in circles or driving through traffic.

Apple didn’t stop with addressing human rights and labor practice abuses along its supply chain, but also provided

and expanded edu-cational opportu-nities for workers in its supply chain. Its Supplier Em-ployee Education and Development (SEED) program has educated more than 861,000 workers since 2008 with free courses in subjects ranging from economics to English. In 2014 alone more than 379,000 work-

ers participated in SEED, easily exceeding the enroll-ment of the 10 largest colleges in the United States. SEED started with traditional classroom based learning, but is now expanding to include educational technol-ogy such as iPad based learning programs. These edu-cation programs offer workers both the opportunity to advance within the factory or transition to a new field.

By tackling big social problems, integrating solutions into products and core business, measuring progress and going beyond expectations, both Apple and Google have provided a clear CSR template that other companies can put to use. n

5

When it comes to a successful company, does cor-porate social responsibility (CSR) and creating shared values (CSV) go hand in hand? Or can a company adopt only one strategy at a time? Is it a growing trend and amongst who? How are these management styles relevant to companies to-

day? What is good for the global community? The discus-sion around the relationship of CSV and CSR is a new one, but one that is useful and important in today’s global world.

What is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)?

In a Heifer International paper by Carol Moore, she noted it well when quoting Jane Nelson from the Harvard Kenne-dy School, “Corporate social responsibility encompasses not only what companies do with their profits, but also how they make them. It goes beyond philanthropy and compliance, and addresses how companies manage their economic, social, and environmental impacts, as well as their relationships in all key spheres of influence: the workplace, the marketplace, the supply chain, the community and the public policy realm.”

What then is Creating Shared Value (CSV)?

It is a business management style focused on compa-nies creating value by making a traditional profit but that additionally engages and addresses social prob-lems as an integral intersection with their business.

Both CSV and CSR have gained credibility and usage with-in the last decade as the public demands that companies be-come more socially conscious. No longer an exception, the importance of social consciousness is moving mainstream in corporate America. Both strategies, CSV and CSR, are being used to make positive changes to help create a better world.

So what’s the difference between the two? To break it down, CSR is incorporating corporate responsibility into a busi-ness model as an initiative to do better, spending company profits to benefit the world; including but not limited to recycling, philanthropy events, charity events, volunteer-ing and donations. It is an external expression (outside the company) of support for social good. CSV is focused more on making an environmental and social impact by intergrading it into the company practices; every company decision is made with the end result of benefiting society.

One difference that highlights the distinctions can be found

b y D E E M A Z E I N

C O R P O R AT E

S O C I A L

R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y

- A N D -

V A L U E S

6

in the way each strategy considers its profits. In CSR, the company looks at the bottom line in a traditional way, checking its costs against revenue to determine profits. In a CSV approach, the strategy looks at triple bottom line returns…. a way to look at profits in a more well-round-ed way, taking into consideration not only money profits, but costs to the community as well. Using the 1989 Exx-on - Valdez oil spill as an example, when looking at their year-end bottom line, using a triple bottom line return, they would have included all costs to the community for clean up before accessing the profits. Traditional bottom lines dictates examining profits made, regardless of any costs to the community as a result of generating those profits. With CSR, the triple bottom line return is not relevant.

In engaging CSR and CSV styles, differences can also be found in the corporate culture. CSR is usually initiated by the Marketing/Corporate Communications or a specific di-vision within a company. It finds its home in one department of the company rather as part of the overall corporate culture. CSV is led by a CEO or executive team member and radiates throughout the company, establishing itself as an integral part of the “way” the company does business. In its actions, the company reflects a socially conscious state of being.

While CSR is an accepted style, it can be argued that the positive impact of this approach on developing communi-ties can be artificial and self-serving. For example, a com-pany like Coca Cola sells its products in Africa and gener-ates a profit. They engage in philanthropy and offer social programs dealing with HIV. These social programs main-tain a positive image for Coca Cola. On the other hand, Coca Cola aggressively markets their soda product, which has high sugar content and could impact diabetes and oth-er ailments associated with high sugar diets in poor com-munities already burdened with health issues. A complaint amongst Africans, a continent which experiences water shortages, is that Coca Cola “mines” water in their coun-tries to create soda. When companies support community social welfare programs while simultaneously promoting unhealthy products or exploiting resources, is the overall impact a positive one? Likewise, if a company maintains poor work environments or offers low wages for workers in the same communities, is the overall impact a positive one?

In both CSR and CSV management styles, a company decides to promote management strategies that have global benefits. Whether through CSV or CSR they are taking steps in some level of responsibility towards humanity, consciously and pos-itively impacting our world. Sadly, while the trend towards

CSR and CSV prevails, some important corporations remain slow to engage in socially responsible management styles.

As the demand for CSR and CSV grows in the global com-munity, businesses slow to make that progressive jump are a cause for concern. Pharmaceutical companies, in particular are sluggish in incorporating CSR and CSV management styles. Pharmaceutical companies are consistently among the most profitable companies, yet the public outcry for cost control on the exorbitant prices has had little impact on tem-pering profits and encouraging pharmaceutical companies to adopt more aggressive CSR or CSV management styles. A head turning example is Martin Shkreli, CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals who bought a lifesaving drug that treats deadly infections commonly found in HIV/AIDS and Can-cer patients and raised the price 5,000 percent. More recent incidents can be seen in the price rise in the drug called Dara-prim, which treats infections, one most commonly known as Malaria. Turing Pharmaceuticals bought the drug in Au-gust of 2015 and immediately prices increased from $13.50 to $750 per tablet, costing patients hundreds of dollars.

One would think pharmaceutical companies would place the goal for high profits second to cure rates and public health. It is ironic that companies entrusted with public health seem less likely to consider public health needs in their management style choices. Multiple incidents where pharmaceutical prices on new and existing drugs are set at extremely high prices have devastating effects on com-munities. As a society, it is important to continue to push for ways to change these absurd corporate behaviors.

In short, CSR and CSV are management styles being forced on companies by the public and by the global communi-ties. Both strategies represent a level of social responsibility and giving back to their communities. In the environment where world wealth is concentrating more and more in the hands of a few, companies will need to incorporate CSR management styles. Perhaps it is likely that as the demand for social conscious behavior placed on corporations becomes more amplified, that the more integrated and all-encom-passing of the two socially conscious focused management styles will become more popular and therefore be ultimately utilized. Would a move in that direction benefit the busi-ness and global community in a mutually beneficially way by easing the transition and confusion brought on by two similar yet different socially conscious business models.n

7

In 2011 the world was introduced to a revolutionary con-cept: Creating Shared Value (CSV). Michael Porter and Mark Kramer were the first to coin the term and predict a massive migration from traditional Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to CSV in the years to follow. So what exactly is CSV?

CSV refers to an operating model in which companies align their core social mission with the bottom line of their busi-ness in order to engage in best practices that have social and financial purpose. This steers away from traditional CSR practices that allocate resources towards causes or activities that are external to the company’s core business and focuses on an internal restructuring that aligns to embedded causes.

Ever since the concept was introduced, big household brands have begun evolving their CSR programs to bet-ter align with the CSV method and many have been quite successful. It is not uncommon to read about the magnif-icent work that Coca Cola, Unilever and IBM, to name a few, are doing in areas such as water conservancy, bottom of the pyramid access and bridging the technology gap, respectively. Thanks to the emergence of CSV, consumers are understanding how businesses have the capacity to ad-dress big social and environmental issues and have started shifting their expectations. Now more than ever, companies are being held to a higher standard of doing right by their business but at the same time doing right by the world.

This new trend leads to three big questions: What does CSV represent for big corporations? In the face of ever-changing consumer expectations, what can SME (Small and Medium Enterprises) bring to the CSV table? And is there a converging space?

Multinational companies, which have been stealing the spotlight for a while, have several advantages when it comes to aligning their business operations with CSV. Having a long trajectory and the seniority companies can rely on their sound financial structure to inject capital and sustain long term alignment, even though the return on their in-vestment won’t be immediately visible. These same large companies can utilize their economies of scale to decrease costs, build on established relationships with customers and have insight into consumer data that has been accrued over the years. All these provide corporations with a solid base upon which they can build their Shared Value vision.

In the case of SMEs, this shift represents a challenge, but one in which they might ultimately have some competitive advantage. In an article by the Shared Value Initiative, An-drew Kassoy, Co-Founder of B Lab, argues that size is defi-nitely an advantage that SMEs can exploit. “SMEs are more agile and can quickly adapt and incorporate new practices, whereas larger organizations often struggle to make mean-ingful change at scale. For a small or medium-sized enter-prise, it is also easier to get a full picture of their footprint: in the case of a large company with an extensive supply chain, it is hard to establish if their sourcing practices are sustain-able every step of the way, down to their last contractor.”

Additionally, because of their size, SMEs are bet-ter at accurately measuring the impact of their ini-

b y D A N I E L L A K E I T H

DEMOCRATIZING CSV:

S C A L I N G

S O C I A L

I M P A C T

8

tiatives, as opposed to a larger corporation where bureaucracy comes largely into play, argues Grant Young, Di-rector of Innovation for Zumio. Not to mention their upper hand with the creation and activation of a corporate culture that aligns with the CSV program, ensuring buy-in from all levels of the corporation, including leadership.

No matter the size, companies have to understand just how valuable CSV can be for their business. Accord-ing to the report “Doing Well by Doing Good,” consulting firm Nielsen found that 55% of consumers world-wide are willing to pay extra for products and services produced by companies that are socially responsible. In the face of ever-changing expectations, what is the intersection where SMEs and big corporations converge?

Collaboration is the key. In his book Building the Impact Economy, Max-imilian Martin proposes “Super-Tankers” to foster collaboration between small businesses and industry leaders. SMEs provide the grassroots insights, the creative methods and the innovative solutions while multinationals pro-vide the capital, the working space and the business knowledge to foster achievable results. Bringing the best that both worlds have to offer in order to tackle social and environmental issues in a cohesive and inclusive manner .

Super-Tankers have already begun popping up in a variety of indus-tries. The Unilever Foundry, AARP’s Innovation Lab and Lowe’s Innova-tion Lab are just some of the pioneers of this uncharted territory and will soon start rolling out awe-inspiring products, services and initiatives that could have only been achieved by a combination of the two perspectives.

In the words of Steven Anderson, leadership expert, “Alone we are smart. Together we are brilliant.”n

Unilever Foundry Ideas Platform -- Collaborate with us to create a #BrightFuture

9

CAPITAL IS MOVING TO B-CORPS AND VEN-TURES CENTERED ON SOCIAL IMPACT.

Sara Dal Lago: B-corps model is a win-win for both the poor and the multinational corpora-tion and should be adopted by more businesses.

Certified B Corporations (or B Corps) are to business what Fair Trade certification is to coffee or USDA Organ-ic certification is to milk. By meeting rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountabil-ity, and transparency, these certified for-profit companies spearhead a global movement of people using business as a force for good. This legal model is rapidly growing, with over 1,600 Certified B Corps, including Etsy, Pata-gonia, and Warby Parker, from 42 different countries.

According to Fast Company, we are actually seeing the first signs indicating that major corporations themselves could become B Corps. As stated by Paul Polman, Unile-ver’s CEO, “The B-corp movement is a critical part of the shift to a more inclusive and purpose-driven economy, which is unquestionably needed.” Moreover, as highlighted by Forbes, consumer demand for corporate accountabili-ty is at an all-time high. By being accountable not only to their shareholders, but also to the entire community, com-

panies can truly differentiate themselves from the crowd.

Aditya Veera: The B-corp focuses on how doing good and making profits can be combined legally, seeking a broad-er mandate than the profit motive. But it is much more interesting to ask how companies can make profits by doing good. What is required is not so much a legal expansion away from profit, but instead a change in the way profits are made.

The idea of shared value provides a solution. Value creation, Michael Porter of Harvard Business School argues, is broad-er than short-term financial performance. Shared value is the generation of profits by meeting social needs. This connects a company’s success to social progress. The advantage is that a corporation needn’t change its constitutional structure to do good. Adidas can manufacture a low-cost shoe that pro-tects wearers in Bangladesh from diseases. Novartis hired community health educators and built a distribution system to 50,000 rural clinics in India, not only creating a channel for selling pharmaceutical products but also achieving the behavior change of seeking effective healthcare solutions.

COMPANIES - AND THEIR LEADERS - ARE INCREASINGLY TAKING A STAND ON SOCIAL

ISSUES.

AV: It is clear that all companies ought to take a stand on social issues. No 21st century corporation, for example, can fail to be against poverty. The question is whether cor-porations ought to take a stand on controversial issues.

What does public opinion say? A majority of Americans believe it is appropriate for companies to stand up for what they believe in politically, regardless of whether or not it is controversial.

But does that entail taking on unnecessary risk that share-holders shouldn’t have to bear? Does it impose a burden on enterprises and their employees (including CEOs)? CEOs are chosen primarily for their ability to run a com-pany. Moral and societal leadership on matters of con-troversy may be well beyond the scope of their duties.

We are often carried away by our enthusiasm for stances we agree with. It sometimes takes an unsavory stance to help us see why businesses ought to stay focused on uncontroversial social responsibility. One stance that sparked media outrage and popular disagreement, particularly within the LGBT community, was Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy’s com-ment on marriage. In 2012, Dan Cathy voiced his “support of the traditional family” to Baptist Press. He went on to

THE HOTTEST

TRENDS IN

C S Rb y A D I T Y A V E E R A

& S A R A D A L L A G O

10

elaborate that “I pray God’s mercy on our generation [that has] the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about.”

If we wish that CEOs speak up on controversial so-cial issues, then we must be prepared for instanc-es where those opinions - and the corresponding philanthropic contributions - are unsavory to us.

SDL: Companies can benefit by taking strate-gic stance aligned with universal social goals.

According to a study published by the Social Science Re-search Network in March 2016 entitled “Do CEO Activ-ists Make a Difference? Evidence from a Field Experience,” CEO activism has been proved to influence public opinion and consumer attitudes. By conducting a field examining the impact of Apple CEO Tim Cook’s public statements against a pending religious freedom law against same-sex couples, researchers were able to show the CEO’s power to sway public opinion as much as a prominent politician. Additionally, as stated by the research team in a New York Times article, consumer gains exceeded losses, who expressed a greater intention to purchase Apple products after being prompted by Cook’s opposition to the discriminatory law.

A prime example of CEO activist is Paul Polman, Unilever CEO. Since when he took on the role in 2009, Unilever has become “the exemplar of the “good company”, the post-er child of sustainability,” wrote The Economist. In 2010, he launched the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan, aimed at doubling the size of the business by 2020, while reducing en-vironmental footprint and increasing positive social impact.

What is most surprising is probably the timing when Pol-man started outlining his vision for the organization, in the middle of the financial crisis in 2009, and presenting it to his shareholders. In an interview with Forbes, when asked about his decision to stop quarterly reporting, Pol-man said that “in order to solve issues like food security or climate change, you need to have longer-term solu-tions.” Polman has always been faithful to his mission for the organization, taking stances that were at times con-troversial, such as disinviting shareholders and sticking to his vision of “making sustainable living commonplace.”

SHOULD CSR BE MANDATORY?

AV: Whether CSR ought to be mandato-ry depends on the economic and politi-cal conditions in which business is conducted.

By making a 2% philanthropic contribution from net profit compulsory for all enterprises that gener-ate more than 10 billion rupees of annual revenue, In-dia has positioned CSR as a standard benchmark.

The law has released much-needed funds into urgent prob-lems such as poverty reduction, education and health-care. Private sector charitable spend rose from 33 billion rupees in 2013 to 250 billion in 2015. That’s a seven-fold increase. Moreover, the CSR law requires companies to set up a CSR board committee to oversee and ensure the annual allocation from net profit. This is a good way to phase in a culture of universal giving, promoting CSR from the periphery of corporate activity to the boardroom.

But the law is not a panacea for development. Larg-er charities have garnered the bulk of the increase in corporate giving, as small charities struggle to prove themselves as credible partners. Corporations also seek large projects based geographically close to their place of business. This reduces the probability that worth-while small charities and their causes will be promoted.

There is also the concern that philanthropic activity will be seen as all there is to CSR. Voluntary commitments may sustain greater momentum, as well as build public-pri-vate partnership capacity in unexpectedly innovative ways.

But for all the caveats, compulsory CSR has gotten off to a good start in India. For a country with urgent socio-economic needs in need of immediate funding, a mandatory CSR law is an imperfect but necessary tool of incremental progress.

SDL: CSR should not be mandatory. The question should actually be: “What are the options to mandatory CSR?”

A mandatory CSR model follows an outdated version of CSR called philanthropy. Companies should instead be thinking about shared value and go further, integrating social value into their core activities, and finding the in-tersection between social purpose and economic profit.

As stated by Vikas Goswami, head of Godrej Industries’ sustainability program, “for most organizations, the dis-cussion at board level is now not about what we do, but does it count as CSR and does it meet the legal require-ments.” As a result, the business motives of corporate responsibility are highly jeopardized (The Guardian).

Last year, Fortune introduced its new Change the World 11

list, spotlighting companies that have made substantial contributions to the world’s greatest problems as part of their core business strategies. Urged by socially responsi-ble consumers and idealistic employees (and not forced by laws - I would add), these companies were able to lever-age new ways to prove the power of capitalism to address social issues (Fortune). As perfectly resumed in the article, “companies that are making genuine efforts to change the world for the better should be encouraged. The future of capitalism—and the future of mankind—depends on it.”

WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS: IS THERE A BETTER WAY THAN CSR?

AV: John Browne, chief executive of British Petroleum from 1995 to 2007, claims CSR is commercially irrele-vant. CSR is not enough, he says, because it splits the ac-tivities of a corporation into CSR and not-CSR. Moreover, CSR is often aimed more at improving employee morale than it is at society’s concerns. Instead, Browne calls for companies to pursue connected leadership i.e. to engage radically and sustainably with the world in all they do.

He is not alone. Dr. Wayne Visser, a thought leader in CSR, identifies 3 pitfalls of conventional CSR. First, when faced with large and urgent problems, we continue to pursue in-cremental progress. Second, CSR is still peripheral at most organizations i.e., it is not integrated with the core activi-ties of the corporation. Third, markets still do not consis-tently and proportionately reward sustainable behaviors.

A sustainable future is one that improves the current iteration of CSR and moves us into CSR 2.0. Dr. Visser identifies five ways in which CSR 2.0 is transformative. First, it is creative. Second, it is scalable enough to tackle the biggest problems we face. Third, it is truly responsive to stakeholders. Fourth, it meets local needs while applying global principles. Fifth, is it circular? Does it approach zero environmental impact?

SDL: I believe there will be a shift in the way we define and think of CSR.

Paul Klein, CEO of Impakt, a social change agency, identifies one big challenge of today’s CSR, i.e., the business’ inability to find a common description. Corporate social responsi-bility, corporate citizenship, cause marketing, sustainability, corporate responsibility… How do companies describe their efforts? The term CSR has become ubiquitous, he says in an article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, which makes it harder for further progress to happen. A solution to

“revive” the future of CSR (if we still should call it that way) would be, according to Klein, a shift from CSR-based invest-ments toward more innovative technology-based solutions. Author, academic instructor, and CSR expert Wayne Visser has identified trends for the future of CSR for the next ten years. While CSR codes, standards, and guidelines will be necessary yet insufficient, cross-sector partnerships will be-come an integral part of all CSR approaches. Additionally, companies will be increasingly expected to follow universal principles - such as the UN Global Compact - and, at the same time, show responsiveness to local issues and needs.

CONCLUSION

There’s an old saying that applies to CSR: Don’t fix what isn’t broken. CSR has made giant strides over the last few years, and it is no longer a question of whether companies do it; it is a question of how. While there are excellent ex-amples of corporations that undertake revolutionary steps, let’s not abandon the momentum of incremental progress by aiming for something radical for every corporation.

There is room for both. The world needs both com-panies that make sustainability and social impact the core of what they do, and companies which treat it as an additional activity to their core business. n

12

It is pretty difficult to ignore the fact that philanthropy has taken Corporate America by storm. Whether today’s busi-nesses decide to support any number of nonprofits through employee volunteer hours or through financial contribu-tions (or a combination of ), supporting causes is a trend that seems to, thankfully, be sticking. As with many trends, innovative ideas have also been swooping in to the scene, breathing in a new burst of energy to how businesses take on their own Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategies.

AN ACT THAT MAY BE WORTHY OF YOUR “LIKE”

In late 2015, Facebook’s Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Dr. Priscilla Chan announced the birth of their first child. On December 1 of the same year, in a publicly posted announcement (fit-tingly through Facebook), the couple dedicated a letter to their daughter Max along with the introduction of a new charitable promise. In this letter, Zuckerberg, solidly ranked #16 on Forbes’ list of the world’s billionaires, and Chan shared their belief that they have a “moral responsi-bility to all children in the next generation.” The initiative will operate with 99% of their Facebook stock, a sum cur-rently sitting at $45 billion in worth. As a result, their daugh-ter Max was born alongside the Chan Zuckerberg Initia-tive, a charitable undertaking created with the intention “to join people across the world to advance human potential and promote equality for all chil-dren in the next generation.”

A NEW LANDSCAPE FOR CSR

Zuckerberg and Chan’s charitable promise comes with crit-icism (implications of tax evasion tactics, for example, due to how the initiative was created); however, this act paints a dramatic photo filled with expectations and opportunities for future and current businesses and how they approach CSR. Zuckerberg and Chan’s intentions are to do good and also encourage others to do good like a massive wave all

members of the world can also ride and conquer with pos-itive social change at the shoreline. Like in Facebook’s case, financial success first knocked on Zuckerberg’s door. Years later, he was able to write such a promise-filled letter to his newborn daughter. However, in 2016, companies now have an additional option in how they approach CSR even as they begin the process of dreaming up their business plans.

A couple of months prior to Zuckerberg and Chan’s an-nouncement, Founder and CEO of Causecast, Ryan Scott, wrote about the “new landscape of corporate social re-sponsibility.” Beyond the scope of community engagement programs and encouraging volunteerism in the workplace, Scott formulates an introduction and summary of innova-tive opportunities for how new businesses can build their

corporate models with charity in mind from the very begin-ning. Behold The Founders Pledge: a “program of Full Circle Fund that engages start up founders to pledge at least one-percent of com-pany equity toward positive change in their communities.”

b y E R I C A B A C A

A HISTORIC AGE TO BE AN ENTREPRENEURHow companies today can incorporate philan-

thropy into their business plans.

“To join people across the world

to advance human potential and

promote equality for all children

in the next generation.”

- goal of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative

13

WHERE ‘HEART,’ COMMUNITY, AND THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT MEET

Promising one-percent of your future company’s equity is a step toward positive local and global change, but the company at the helm also becomes a part of a larger community of entrepreneurs looking to make the same im-pact on society. For example, once companies decide to join The Founders Pledge, they automatically become part of the larger and growing international Pledge 1% community that the Salesforce Foundation is build-ing. Another network called the Social Capital Markets (SOCAP) is similar in nature in that is also serves as a net-work of social impact leaders looking to advance non profits and share innovative ideas on the global stage. As Ryan Scott describes in his article, it is a “historic time in corporate philanthropy.” It will be fascinat-ing to see its continued evolution particularly as advances in technology continue to facilitate, highlight, and promote altruistic endeavors. Who truly knows the impact we could make if every business pledged their one percent. From the beginning. It’s certainly a motivating thought worth spending your time on. n

Greenwashing is a term used to describe a compa-ny that utilizes advanced marketing and persuasive PR to deliberately misguide consumers into believing their prod-ucts are eco-friendly. A result of high consumer demand for earth friendly products, greenwashing is increasingly used in corporate America. It’s heart-wrenching to discover how companies promoting many everyday products use gre-enwashing in their ad campaigns. Worse, is the way in which profit motive trumps Corporate Social Responsibility.

GREENWASHING AWAY CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

b y D E E M A Z E I N

14

An excellent article by Sins of Greenwashing breaks down the seven sinful ways greenwashing occurs: first is the sin of the hidden trade-off, then the sin of no proof, the sin of vagueness, the sin of irrelevance, the sin of lesser of two evils, the sin of fibbing and the sin of worshiping false labels. Sins of Greenwashing offers consumers a thorough guide for double checking a product against eco-friendly advertising claims. To my surprise, some of the world’s most beloved companies are getting away with greenwashing by deceiv-ing customers with misleading claims and false advertising, misrepresenting a commit-ment to eco-friendly busi-ness practices through-out their supply chain.

One example is McDon-ald’s, a fast food chain known to all that recently came out as “going green;” but how green is green? Their revamped website now embellishes their commitment to being eco-friendly with a green background and farm-like figures. An earthy stamp-like drawing placed front and center on the page showcases an underlined “Planet” in bold print. Consumers may easily assume from the website changes that McDonald’s is, in fact, going green. When look-ing closer, which sins have the popular chain committed?

The Sin of Vagueness is described as making a claim so poorly defined it is easily misunderstood by the consumer is one of the many sins McDonald’s has committed. Mc-Donald’s claimed by 2016 “many” of their beef burgers would be made with “verified sustainable beef.” Which begs the question: what classifies as verified sustainable beef and by whom? The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) is a multi-stakeholder group, created for the advancement and improvement of the global beef chain.

Here’s where it gets good.

One of those multi-stakeholders just happens to be in-dustry giant McDonald’s. Wouldn’t McDonald’s bet-ter prove its commitment to sourcing sustainable beef if the third-party setting and verifying its sustainabil-ity benchmarks were independent of McDonald’s?

In a 2014 news release, 23 NGOs such as Friends of Earth call out the GRSB and McDonalds on their greenwashing due to the lack of standards, methods and guidelines for businesses providing sustainable beef. The 23 NGOS claim the door is

left open for anyone to claim they are serving sustainable beef.

The McDonald’s chain is guilty of more than the green-washing sin of vagueness. The Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off was committed when the company changed their foam cups to paper ones, advertised the change as “eco-friendly,” and embellished their success in recycling and reduced package waste. While their cup change is eco-friendly, what about everything else? Their lids, straws, and several other items continue to be made out of plastic. McDonalds commits the greenwashing Sin of Lesser of Two Evils when it aggressive-ly advertises its unhealthy fast food by talking about going green and an all-natural burger. Customers are misled into thinking McDonald’s fast food is not so bad for your health. McDonald’s food is not healthy because it is processed and not all natural produce. Until the day that McDonald’s food is improved, “green” advertising is distracting the public from understanding the true quality of the food they are putting in their bodies. While the eco-friendly steps McDonalds has taken should be acknowledged, the hope is that more substantial changes continue to be made towards a green world and a more socially responsible corporate culture.

The changes that have been made are good, but they are not the same as the commitment to the principles of go-ing green, offering healthy foods, nor do they demonstrate a commitment to the ethics of CSR. Unlike McDonald’s, new fast food chains such as Elevation Burger, are driven by a passion for good food that’s organic, sustainable and fresh,

15

a motto their company believes in. Their website is created so simply easing customer’s search for information on their products, the opposite of McDonald’s cluttered and confus-ing site. Elevation Burger offers an immense amount of in-formation on exactly how they are environmentally sustain-able, organic, all natural and a humane company. As a result, Elevation Burger is a company whose refreshing honesty doesn’t need greenwashing to boost them up in sales. Eleva-tion Burger stands as an example of a company committing no greenwashing sins, an honest and ethical CSR company.

What role, if any, does corporate responsibility play at Mc-Donald’s? McDonald’s websites claim they work directly with their suppliers to make sure they meet the require-ments of the “Three Es,” ethics, environmental responsi-bility and ethical viability. A corporation’s responsibility is to sustain ethical behavior while positively benefiting the community, environment and economy. In an attempt to increase customers and boost sales, McDonald’s is engag-ing in greenwashing tactics which ultimately cause it to lose credibility with the community. That loss of credibil-ity, in turn, does not demonstrate good social responsi-bility towards the community McDonald’s serves. At the end of the day, McDonald’s and corporations like it, are washing away corporate social responsibility by partaking in greenwashing. As McDonalds website states, “We take our commitment to the people and the communities we serve very seriously.” Though their greenwashing sins prove to be a contradiction to the website’s claims and commit-ments to be socially responsible to those communities.n

IS YOUR COMPA-NY CONSIDERING

CONSCIOUS CAPI-TALISM?

b y B R Y N N B I D D L E

Some cynics believe “corporate programs to fund social and environmental programs are nothing more than public relations campaigns to boost brand repu-tations, often disproportionately to the effort itself.”

These naysayers must grow to understand that “mutual benefit is not only a reasonable objec-tive, it is also required to ensure long-term success.”

US and UK companies in the Fortune Global 500 spend $15.2bn a year on corporate social responsibility (CSR) ac-tivities, according to the first report to quantify this spending. These companies, most of which are publicly traded, could not justify these extraordinary levels of investment with-out some type of measurable return on investment (ROI).

There are two things critics must under-stand before choosing to condemn CSR:

1. CSR has evolved. True leaders in the space no longer write big checks only after a banner sales year, then send out a press release to congratulate them-selves. Rather, the best CSR practitioners leverage their business expertise to create long-term, strate-gic plans to address some of society’s biggest problems.

16

2. Improved brand reputation is not always the return CSR practitioners seek. Other benefits include increased em-ployee morale, decreased environmental impact and height-ened awareness of societal issues – not even the most skeptical can argue that these are smarmy reasons to implement CSR.

Better practices and motives aside, many still shun CSR because it is not backed by altruism and anonymity – the basis of true charity in some people’s minds. Top execu-tives may subscribe to these ideals in their personal lives, but the reality is that altruism and anonymity have no place in the corporate environment. Businesses exist to make a profit and, in turn, to create value for shareholders.

Thankfully for today’s nonprofits, businesses have come to realize that CSR and “doing business in a more sustainable way sells.” Many nonprofits would struggle to thrive, or even exist, if it weren’t for corporate donations. Take the Special Olympics for example. Coca Cola is a founding partner of this organization and has been an ongoing supporter since 1968. Many consumers have brand loyalty to Coke, and for some, it’s their commitment to “open happiness” for 4.5 million athletes with intellectual disabilities that fosters that loyalty. Can one really condemn Coke for donating mil-lions to the Special Olympics and creating increased un-derstanding of intellectual disabilities to in return increase Coke’s employee engagement and increase brand loyalty? CSR is a gray area because the philosophical ideals of char-ity and the realities of the business bottom line do not

always seem to be in alignment. Maybe the solution is to stop trying to make them align. At its core, the term corporate social responsibility is misleading. Corporations do not have have a responsibility to be charitable, they have a responsibility to create value for their shareholders. Participation in CSR programs is completely voluntary.

It’s no coincidence that the first result for the Google search, “reasons to implement CSR,” yields a Forbes arti-cle – a leading business magazine. Companies voluntari-ly participate in CSR because it just makes good business

sense. Companies can save money in the long term by making production more efficient and environmental-ly sound. They can positively differentiate their brand in the eyes of consumers (TOMS® Shoes is founded on this principle). They can engage customers by providing educa-tion on societal issues. They can increase employee engage-ment by inspiring their workforce to work for something bigger than themselves or the company. The list goes on.

Let’s stop arguing about the motives or philosophi-cal rightness of corporate social responsibility and agree that what is good for society can indeed also be good for business. There is nothing wrong with a win-win.

To better describe this win-win, some companies such as Whole Foods Market have begun attributing their efforts to “conscious capitalism” rather than “corporate social respon-sibility.” Some may chalk this difference up to mere seman-tics, but there is a distinct and important difference. Con-scious capitalism refers to “businesses that serve the interests of all major stakeholders—customers, employees, investors, communities, suppliers the environment.” Corporate social responsibility on the other hand is, a “business practice that involves participating in initiatives that benefit society.”

At their core, these two approaches to doing good by doing well are vastly different. CSR is clearly a “discretionary busi-ness practice” that companies choose to implement. Con-scious capitalism, on the other hand, embeds its financial, en-vironmental and social impacts as part of “business as usual”.

Corporate jargon may need some time to catch up, but one thing is clear: the companies making the biggest im-pact on societal issues are practicing “conscious capitalism” whether they know it or not. Let’s adjust our mindset. Let’s adjust our vocabulary. Let’s accept that altruism does not need to be at the root of a donation to make it impactful. Let’s embrace conscious capitalism and the shared value op-portunities it creates as the business model of the future.n

17

DOCUMENTARY: VIRTUAL REALITY STORYTELLINGGeorgetown Students Experience Virtual Reality at the Gelardin New Media Center

b y K E V O N P A Y N T E R

18

What are the Global Goals? In September 2015, the UN adopted a new set of 17 Sus-tainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals, which serve as a roadmap to create the world we want by 2030. These aspi-rational goals aim to solve the world’s biggest problems, such as ending poverty, combating climate change and fighting injustice and inequalities, and reflect a universal consensus about what the world’s pri-orities should be. While not legally binding, they call for collective action from gov-ernments, the private sector, civil society and individuals.

It’s good news for the corporate commu-nity! Why?

When talking about sustainable development, big corpo-rations and private companies are not the first thing that comes to mind. But that’s exactly what makes this moment in time an unprecedented opportunity for businesses to align their CSR strategies with the 2030 Agenda, adding their voices to a global movement for social good. As high-lighted by Forbes, the Global Goals represent clear business opportunities to show responsibility through innovative products and services. In this sense, these Goals will signifi-cantly influence the way companies do CSR at a global level.

As stated by Michael Møller, Director General of United Nations Office at Geneva, there is enormous potential for

the private sector to have an impact on global challenges, by contributing resources, scaling up initiatives and sharing expertise. In order to make public-private partnerships truly successful, Møller claims governments need to create a fa-vorable environment by providing companies the right in-centives to engage in such partnerships, by ensuring, for in-stance, that tax systems are fair, infrastructures are adequate, and skills and expertise are well-coordinated across sectors.

How can businesses get involved?

There are many different ways businesses can get in-volved and support the Global Goals.

Unlike initiatives such as the UN Global Compact - the world’s largest corporate sus-tainability initiative - companies do not need to apply or for-mally sign a commit-ment to the princi-ples in order to join. Businesses can simply choose to publicly express their support for the Global Goals. The Goals Resource Centre offers a toolkit

containing useful resources for companies and organizations aligned with the 2030 Agenda, such as brand guidelines, social media ideas, and icons and logos to feature on their website.

Businesses might also want to become involved in joint collaborative initiatives, such as the Impact 2030 coali-tion - the only business-led effort that advances corporate volunteering efforts to achieve the Global Goals. Member organizations commit to mobilize all employee volunteer actions toward the achievement of one or more Global

GLOBAL GOALS FOR A GLOBAL CSRWhy it’s good for the world and for your business too

b y S A R A D A L L A G O

“The SDGs provide a platform to

show responsibility, pursue oppor-

tunity and innovation, and inspire

other businesses to get on board.”

Lise Kingo, UN Global Compact Executive Director

Goals. Indeed, the first funding partner, The Ritz-Carl-ton Hotel Company, is an organization that has made its human capital its biggest resource and brand value.

Establishing strategic partnerships is another great way businesses can support the Global Goals. The Partnerships for SDGs online platform aims to foster global engagement around multi-stakeholder partnerships by enabling organi-zations to register their initiatives in support of the Global Goals. The platform will also allow for ongoing monitor-ing of the progress toward the achievement of the Goals.

Examples of corporate support for the Global Goals

Many corporations publicly support the Global Goals. Some of them may decide to engage with all the 17 Goals, while others may focus on the ones that most-ly align with their business values and field of industry.

MARS, for example, publicly stated its support on the day of the Global Goals’ adoption and has demonstrated its commitment to all 17 Goals by showcasing its support and linking existing initiatives to the corresponding Goal.

Unilever asked a group of leaders and experts to write letters to the future, exploring the pathway we could take to get there, focusing on issues such as sustainable consumption and production (Goal 12), hunger (Goal 2), life on land (Goal 15) and clean water and sanita-tion (Goal 6). Paul Polman, Unilever’s CEO, also reiter-ated the company’s commitment to sustainability as a key business driver through innovations that can help people solve the biggest challenges around the world.

“It won’t be easy. I hope that

business will be the vanguard

of this movement, but to reach

our goals it will be vital that we

redefine how we work with one

another.”

Paul Polman, Unilever CEO

In conclusion, businesses have the unique opportunity to share their expertise, resources and, in the case of mul-tinational corporations, their global reach to solve the world’s biggest problems. Joining the bigger conversa-tion and showing support is not only a way to do good, it is also a smart business decision. Acting as overarching guidelines for CSR strategies, the Global Goals are leaving ample room for the private sector to choose how to align themselves to the global 2030 Agenda, while tailoring the approach that makes most sense for their business. n

At first glance, it might seem that Plato, John D. Rockefeller, and Elvis don’t have much in common. Sep-arated by generations and even centuries, the three have their own unique (and substantial) chapters in the histo-ry books. They each spark drastically varying reactions and emotions. And perhaps only one has a name that causes an immediate and unnatural jerk of the lip. There is, how-ever, a common theme embedded in each of the foot-prints they left on the world and society. Philanthropy.

PLATO, AND THE DOCUMENTED BIRTH OF PHILANTHROPY

Philanthropic activity can be traced as far back as 347 BC, around the year Plato is known to have died. Though benevo-lent people most certainly have always existed, Plato formally organized generosity to create a stream that would flow even after his own death. He did so by leaving specific instructions in his will on what was to hap-

b y E R I C A B A C A

WHAT ELVIS CAN TEACH US ABOUT CSRPlato, Rockefeller and Elvis’ philanthropic footprints

pen to his farm, left in the hands of his nephew. The money from the sale of Plato’s farm was to help provide for the faculty and students of the Academy he founded. Though initially an informal association of intellectuals, the Acad-emy (named after the garden meeting point for the group, which bore the name of a local hero) lasted for 900 years and allowed many bright minds to shed light on the world. Aristotle and Socrates were amongst the power line-up.

THERE’S NOTHING STANDARD ABOUT ROCKEFELLER’S PHILANTHROPIC IMPACT

Fast-forward to the 19th Century, the birth of the oil in-dustry saw the rise of a young and industrious John D. Rockefeller, who became one of the richest men in the world (and Ameri-ca’s first billionaire) as founder of the Standard Oil Company. As Rockefeller climbed the corporate ladder, his business tactics rested under a watchful eye and faced much criticism and legal battles.

Criticism followed him into his acts of benevolence, with many questioning if Rockefeller’s philanthropic model promoted separation of the classes and was made possi-

ble only through “tainted” money from unethical busi-ness practices. What is indisputably etched into the his-tory of philanthropy, however, is the vast sum of funds he donated to charitable efforts spanning anywhere from public health campaigns, education, biomedical research and religious institutions. Approximately $540 million of his $11 billion worth was donated to charities by the time of his death in 1937 (six weeks before turning 98!). This philanthropic spirit preceded his riches. “When I was only making a dollar a day,” Rockefeller once noted, “I was giv-ing [away] five, ten, or twenty-five cents.” Of his most notable contributions, Rockefeller’s riches helped to build Spelman College, the University of Chicago and Rockefeller Univer-

sity, formerly known as the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. In 1913, the Rockefeller Foundation, still alive today, was founded “to advance the well-being of mankind.”

THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ELVIS

We are catapulted into the 1950s where a young Elvis Presley arrived on stage and shook the world at its knees. Elvis quickly became one of the most influential cultural icons of his century and his music, to this day, rocks the airwaves. His generosity, though, also deserves a mic drop.

If on a visit to Memphis, Tennessee, you have the opportunity to visit Graceland Mansion, home of Elvis Presley, you’d un-derstand that grandeur and unique tastes in design were cer-tainly a part of this musician’s core. One particular section of the house, though, was not in action during his living years. A visit today would leave you staring at a room wallpapered with check donations, awards and photos, all proof that the “King of Rock and Roll” reigned with a compassionate hand.

Elvis’ rise to fame also led to a rise in his gift giving. He once stated that he would “never get so famous he would forget what it was like to grow up in need.” For numerous years, Elvis donated $50,000 to each of 50 charities in the Mem-phis area. He performed benefit concerts, donated cars, wrote out checks all in support of countless Memphis-based and national charities. Half a century later, the Elvis Pres-ley Charitable Foundation continues his legacy of giving.

Plato, Rockefeller and Elvis each left their own legacy on humankind, but their philanthropic decisions planted a separate and deep-rooted seed – philanthropy weighs heav-ily on one’s personal brand. Today, brick and mortar brands fully grasp this centuries-old phenomenon, making Cor-porate Social Responsibil-ity a concept that is in full force in 2016. Elvis might be proud that present-day Corporate America embrac-es his lyrical vision…”a little less fight and a little more spark, close your mouth and open your heart.” n

“When I was only making a dol-

lar a day, I was giving [away]

five, ten, or twenty-five cents.”

John D. Rockefeller

21

The 90’s and early 2000’s saw a rise in the creation of NGOs as a response to the antagonization of business being the root of all that was wrong in the world. Compa-nies, in turn responded with very one-dimensional campaigns to endear customers with their social efforts. Big checks to philanthropic causes were given left and right and enforced volunteer days were the talk of the town.

We have come a long way from those days. Someone stopped and thought for a minute, “What if we shifted our strate-gy? What if we keep doing good for our business but engage in bet-ter practices that will also be better for the world?” This is what is known as Triple Bottom Line: people, plan-et and revenue.

Kathy Pickus, Senior Vice Pres-ident for Global Citizenship and Policy at Abbott, said, “Corporate

citizenship is not about giving more money and more product, it is about transforming businesses to operate responsibly.”

So what has lead to this new trend? One factor that pushed for a change in the business mentality is the integration of Millennials and the soon-to-come Gen-Z into the work force. These generations are looking to make a dif-ference and to work for a cause they believe in. In order for companies to capture and retain (in as much as possi-ble) better talent, they must adapt their modus operandi as employers to meet the expectations of their employees.

Another reason is that new findings in behavioral science have only reinforced that humans are irrational creatures who base their decisions on emotions, and how we choose our laundry detergent is no different. According to Simon Sinek, well-known writer on leadership, customers are at-tracted to the “Why” and not the “What” that companies are selling. Companies are starting to realize that market share is better captured when there is an authentic, larger reason that goes beyond profits. The only problem is that most of the time consumers are skeptical about CSR campaigns and social responsibility claims that big corporations make.

Enter B Corp Community

Created in 2009, B Corp Community is an organization that looks “to redefine success in business so that one day all companies compete not only be the best in the world, but the best for the world.” With already more than 1,000 compa-nies, from Ben & Jerry’s and Patagonia to Etsy and everything in between, they have presence in 60 industries in more than

b y D A N I E L L A K E I T H

THE RISE OF THE B CORP COMMUNITY

22

30 countries. Their online presence on social platforms has been worthy of digital strategy textbooks. The #BtheChange hashtag has been used an astounding 8.6 million times.

B Corp Community works in collaboration with B-Lab, a sister non-profit that provides the metrics and engi-neering tools necessary for companies to: A) get cer-tified, and b) keep benchmarks and monitor their businesses so they can aim for best-in-class practices.

This organization is not only a stamp that certifies a com-pany is complying with governance best-practices, but a platform to lobby for new legislature and a data base for companies to construct reports and get market insights. Not to mention that it has also worked well as a market-ing strategy. It is reported that 28% of B Corp companies are more likely to have women and minorities in man-agement and 47% more likely to use on-site renewable energy. These are just two amazing facts that make con-sumers and employees prefer companies like Catchafire or Kleen Kanteen over the competition. (For more informa-tion on B Corp Community visit www.bcorporation.net)

It is difficult to predict what the next trend will look like, or how long this new model will be operating. But look-ing back, there is a clear pattern for improvement and evolution. The days where thought leadership, sharehold-er value and social impact interweave are fast approaching and when that day comes, everyone will be a winner. n

Employee engagement – it’s easy to dismiss these two words as the newest corporate fad or as meaning-less buzzwords. Don’t do it; it could be one of your company’s most costly oversights. According to a re-cent Gallup poll, just 30% of American workers are engaged at work. This lack of engagement costs the nation $450-$550B annually in lost productivity.

Companies big and small are beginning to recognize em-ployee engagement shortfalls, but few know how to begin addressing them. It is imperative to first understand what employee engagement is. Kevin Kruse, author of Employ-ee Engagement 2.0 defines the phenomenon as, “the emo-tional commitment the employee has to the organization and its goals.” The ultimate goal of employee engagement is to motivate employees to expend “discretionary effort” – an elusive level of effort above and beyond the call of duty. Engaged employees are productive employees. The former CEO of Camp-bell Soup, Doug Conant, said it best, “To win in the marketplace you must first win in the workplace.”

b y B R Y N N B I D D L E

SUCCEEDING AT EMPLOYEE EN-GAGEMENT

23

It’s important to note that the word “happy” has not been mentioned in this conversation about employee engagement. Too many employers mistake happiness for engagement and simply throw money at the issue. No amount of free lunches or nap pods will bolster engagement – even employee perk legends like Google or Facebook have disengaged staffers. So how can a company address its costly lack of employee en-gagement if even REI’s “Yay Days” can’t solve the problem?

Following the discerning results of Gallup’s employee en-gagement survey and the consensus that happy ≠ engaged, thought leaders in venues such as Forbes, The Huffington Post and Inc. started doling out advice. The tips varied by author, but one point was consistent throughout nearly all – make work matter. This succinct advice encourages compa-nies to implement and/or expand corporate social respon-sibility (CSR) efforts. By its most simple definition, CSR refers to a “business practice that involves participating in initiatives that benefit society.” The team at The Huffington Post summed up the reason to implement a CSR program best, “If your company is focused solely on increasing sales, your employees will be in constant danger of burnout. They’ll work harder and be happier if their work has meaning.”

Time is of the essence. Start implementing your CSR pro-gram now to not only better engage your current work-force, but also to attract the future leaders of your com-pany. By 2020, Millennials will be 50% of the workforce. This generation is the most socially conscious yet. Studies show that recent MBAs will work for a significantly lower salary if they truly believe in what they are doing. More-over, 80% of 13-25 year olds want to work for a company that cares about how it impacts and contributes to society.Companies are paying attention to the beliefs of Millen-nials and their younger counterparts and the future work-force’s requests for CSR programs. As early as 2011, 60% of companies surveyed by Forbes either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, “Philanthropy and volunteer-ism are critical for recruiting younger qualified employees.”

It’s wonderful to see the ever increasing buy-in for CSR efforts, but this statement of agreement also raises a major concern for companies investing in the creation or growth of CSR programs to attract top talent. If so many companies have begun engaging employees through CSR efforts, how can a

company stand out from the crowd? Tim Mohin, Director of Corporate Social Responsibility at AMD, acknowledges the challenge, stating, “CSR has become such a common prac-tice, we believe no one is really paying attention anymore”.

There is one big caveat to Mr. Mohin’s statement. People may not be paying attention to companies’ messages about CSR, but they are certain-ly tuned into friends’ pas-sions. These passions are more easily shared than ever thanks to social media. Is your company encouraging employees to “get social” on its behalf? Likely not, since only 33% of U.S. em-ployers currently encourage social sharing. It’s time to embrace this ever grow-ing trend. Empower your employees to become an army of brand ambassadors, marketers and recruiters.

There is an innate fear in corporate America that allowing employees to discuss work on social media could expose negativity, or worse yet, sensitive information. These fears are valid, but the truth is that 50% of employees already post content about their employer – whether authorized to or not. Stop fighting the inevitable, have faith in your team and capitalize on the fact that employee-shared content (as opposed to traditional marketing, advertising or sales con-tent) can increase reach 10x and engagement with a brand 8x.

The adage, “trust is earned, not given,” perfectly describes an ideal implementation of social media in the workplace. Let your employees earn your trust by training them on the “dos and don’ts” of social media. Dell, Inc. was one of the first companies to implement a social media training program for employees. Since 2011, Dell has been offer-ing a voluntary, eight-hour training on social media to its 100,000-person workforce. Employees can become certified by the company’s Social Media and Community University. The goal of this program is simple, “If Dell’s employ-ees understand how to best use social media, not only will that help them, it will help the company as well,” said Sean Carey, lead facilitator of the trainings. This has had a profound effect on the company – since its inception, Dell has not only seen increased brand building, but also a drastic increase in employee re-

24

ferrals. A big part of what Dell’s employees post about is – you guessed it – CSR. Do a quick search for #Dell4Good and tell me you wouldn’t be inspired to work for such a community-driven company!

The task of overcoming dismal employee engagement stats can seem daunting. It should not be. If companies remember three simple words – make work matter – they can better engage current employees and at-tract new talent. To successfully make work matter, companies must es-tablish, or grow, meaningful CSR programs. Once in place, companies should showcase their philanthropic efforts, but avoid using dated out-reach methods – CSR reports or press releases. With about 40,000 CSR reports being released annually, it’s time for your company to take that leap of faith to make its CSR efforts stand out from the crowd – encour-age employees to get social on your company’s behalf. Take a note from Dell – empower your employees to build both their personal brand and your company’s brand by offering social media trainings. Well-craft-ed, employee created social media content could be the best and most cost-effective marketing/recruitment campaign your company ever runs. n

25