A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action Please

This time around I want to share some thoughts and ideas that came up for me this week about CSR and the conversations we have about it (and as a preview, if you keep reading, you'll get to hear what Elvis Presley thinks of sustainability). The other day I had the chance to sit in on a conference call and presentation hosted by the Stanford Graduate School of Business Office of Executive Education and their Business Strategies for Environmental Sustainability (BSES) program. Part presentation and part sales pitch for the upcoming BSES in October, the webinar entitled "Sustainability Matters" was hosted by Professor William Barnett, Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute at Stanford and Director of the BSES program.

Professor Barnett started out with a discussion of the Kuna Indian Nation living off the coast of Panama. According to Barnett, the Kuna demonstrate the harmony that can exist between indigenous people and their natural environment. They've lived a seemingly isolated existence in which they've developed incredibly sustainable farming practices without influence from the outside world.

Over time, the Kuna Indians that used to live in the interior country have started moving towards the coast, and although we might assume they continued with their sustainable ways, that turns out to not be the case. Instead, it appears the Kuna have been using the water along the coast as a virtual dumping ground, badly damaging the coral reefs and coastline. Barnett made the point that the Kuna serve as a perfect example that sustainability is not "one size fits all" - that is, what works in one place, or organization, or Indian Nation, might not work in another.

He then went on to give a quick overview of 3 important constituencies - businesses, environmental NGO's, and governments - and the role that each plays in the sustainability conversation:

Business: Traditionally, sustainability (and CSR in general) in business has taken on a compliance function: making sure we stay out of trouble - a view that Barnett said ignores "potential for Triple Bottom Line opportunities". While it doesn't always directly pay to be green (that is, moving beyond the "low-hanging fruit" cost cutting measures that help the environment and save money), there are indirect benefits to these types of behaviors (ie: responding to consumer demand for environmental and social responsibility on the part of business). What's really interesting here, Barnett pointed out, is that "it would be a disservice to assume that they [business and environmental goals] go hand-in-hand". They are not always complimentary and trade-offs are common and inevitable.

Environmental NGO's: Barnett said these types of organizations (including Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund) have gone through a "pragmatic shift" over the last decade - moving from aggressive activist to partner with business. Traditionally some of these organizations worked as antagonizers, but they are now learning when to fight and when to cooperate. Barnett said these organizations serve four main purposes: 1) helping consumers distinguish between "greening" and "greenwashing"; 2) creating and supporting certification programs and standards that showcase real environmental change; 3) educating business and consumers and raising awareness; and 4) working with government and regulators to develop solutions, identify constraints, and create change. In essence, these NGO's are the middlemen that bridge the gap between business and government in sustainability.

Governments: Like compliance in business or activism in NGO's, the traditional role of governments in sustainability was all about regulation. Today, Barnett said, governments are looking for ways to "harness markets to solve social problems". In many ways, environmental solutions (like cap and trade, solar power, ecotourism, and others) have become the source of new markets by providing incentives for technological innovation that's good for the environment.

After a couple of questions from the audience, the call ended - and while it was an interesting overview of the topic, I was left, truthfully, feeling a little deflated. Sure - what Barnett said made sense, and for folks looking for a primer on sustainability, it wasn't a bad intro.

But I couldn't help but channel a little Elvis Presley and think to myself:

I know it's a little off-base but my point for bringing Elvis into this whole thing (beyond listening to some fun music) is this:

I've attended a lot of these sustainability events, and sat in on a lot of these calls, and finally gotten to the point where I'm hearing the same thing over and over again. After talking to a few of my friends in CSR and sustainability, they agreed with me. Together, we wondered: at what point does the conversation around sustainability strategy and execution actually become an action plan? How can we dive below the 30,000 foot view, to stop just talking about it and start doing it?

What's interesting about this is that in some ways it showcases the problem that everyone's having with sustainability. Sure, some people have been working in CSR for decades so they're already "in the know". And while I haven't been involved myself for too long, I've taken proactive steps to immerse myself in these issues and drill down quickly. But in many cases and for many people, the conversation is so new, and the territory in some ways is so uncharted, that people and organizations aren't acting as boldy as they should because they're waiting for everyone to get on board. The priority right now is conversation and making sure we're all on the same page. Thus, conversations like the one Barnett led are important first steps in engaging a wide and broad audience.

And yes, we do want this wide and broad audience to be involved and engaged - so I guess I can be a little more patient while the conversation slowly progresses forward. Change is slow, and talking about why we should change is even slower.

In the meantime, though, I don't think I'll be signing up for another webinar any time soon.

Open. Big. Fast. Connected. Long.

I was lucky to come across this TED talk by Katherine Fulton, President of Monitor in Cambridge, MA and I just felt the need to share it. "You Are the Future of Philanthropy" is a compelling, articulate discussion of 5 emerging trends that Ms. Fulton has witnessed in philanthropy today:

• Mass Collaboration
• Online Philanthropy Marketplaces
• Aggregated Giving
• Innovation Competitions
• Social Investing

She talks about how philanthropy and foundations need to be "Open, Big, Fast, Connected and Long" and that innovation and entrepreneurship in philanthropy are creating a new, unified community of philanthropists.

Ms. Fulton ends her 12-minute presentation on a poignant note - talking about legacy and the kind of role models we, as everyday citizens and empowered philanthropists, want to be for future generations.

A must watch!

The Business Case for Doing Good

With only 3 weeks left in my internship at ABC, I'm starting to change direction a bit. The first 6-7 weeks really centered around time-sensitive deliverables like rolling out the employee product donation campaign and launching an internal corporate giving awareness program. As these efforts begin to wind down, I've been able to spend more time on one of my most exciting summer projects: building the case for branding corporate giving at ABC. As soon as I found out about this project I was excited to tackle it. I'm really interested in marketing and how brands convey certain messages, so thankfully this week I was able to get started. As I dove deeper into my research and read more about the power of brands in articulating a company's social agenda (and I must say, many thanks to Cone for providing some really terrific data), I started doing a lot of thinking not just about branding but about corporate giving and corporate social responsibility in general. My charge was (and still is) to build the case for branding. But somewhere along the way this week it turned into building the case for doing good.

Sometimes at ABC we walk a delicate line in terms of the purpose of our corporate giving program: are we giving back because it makes us feel good? Because it's the right thing to do? Because our employees are asking for it? Or because it ultimately impacts our bottom line? Often it feels like the programs we're promoting (employee donations of product and time, especially) are meant as engagement tools or as a way to do something out of the goodness of our hearts, and not because there is a strategic business reason. Although I like to believe that people want to give back and that "doing the right thing" is everyone's responsibility, even I understand that any corporate philanthropy program must have some sort of impact on business outcomes in order to recieve the support and funding it needs to succeed long-term.

This week I was lucky to have a conversation with David Almy, partner at ADC Partners, a sustainability and cause marketing firm in San Francisco, CA. I had gotten in touch with Dave to pick his brain about the role of brands in corporate giving programs, and he was nice enough to share some terrific ideas with me (and raise some really thought-provoking questions). One of the things that stuck out most in my mind from our conversation was the idea that both "philanthropy" and "brand" are very nebulous terms that are difficult to measure and quantify.

But therein lies the rub, Dave said. In business, everything is about measurement and impact -  and any company (and especially any CFO) that's going to buy into a corporate giving program will need to understand how it all connects to the bottom line. Unfortunately, these days it's just not so easy to wrap your arms around the impact of your corporate giving program (Funny enough, in a perfect example of the stars aligning this week, I also happened to meet Farron Levy, President of True Impact - a Boston-based firm that's developed tools to help companies measure the ROI of their corporate citizenship programs! From what I hear about True Impact, Farron is really one of the leaders in this kind of measurement and surely one to watch).

For Dave's part, he suggested I look at the customer lifecycle and consider how these kind of programs can go beyond employee engagement and move into customer satisfaction and purchase loyalty (afterall, happy employees beget happy customers, right?). This idea alone has given me food for thought and I've spent the time since my conversation with Dave considering how I can weave this into my branding project.

One other important point to mention from my talk with Dave: I've been doing a lot of thinking about companies with CSR or philanthropy programs and looking at which ones had these kinds of social agendas written into their DNA "at birth" (Seventh Generation, for instance) versus those companies that have built their programs up over time (there are lots of them). I asked Dave about this and whether he thought integrating this kind of social responsibility into everyday business from the get-go had anything to do with the success of that company's program. Dave didn't seem to be so sure, and to answer my question he gave me two examples.

The first is Salesforce.com, whose founder Marc Benioff very clearly had a vision for how he wanted to give back to the community through donations of money, product and time. If you don't yet know about the 1% program and the Salesforce.com Foundation, this is one to read up on and a great example of this kind of thinking being embedded in an organization from the beginning.

On the other hand, Dave pointed to Clorox as an example of a newly "converted" company; that is, one that's seeing firsthand that involvement in CSR and sustainability can really have an impact on the bottom line (even if this kind of agenda wasn't built into the fabric of the company from the start). Although it has received some criticism fom staunch environmentalists, Clorox's Green Works line of household cleaners has done incredibly well, especially with young moms who want to do good things for their families but don't necessarily want to pay extra. Throw in Clorox's recent acquisition of Burt's Bees and their new Brita Filter for Good campaign and all of a sudden you've got a company who's quickly learned that doing good can be good for business.

This is a relevant debate for me a for a couple of reasons:

1) because I want to figure out how to help ABC "become" a Clorox

2) because eventually I want to create my own for-profit social venture (thus mixing business and giving back).

Although I'm not yet ready to go out on my own and start my own business, in an interesting twist I'm pleased to say that my mom Janice is. For 30 years my mom owned The Bead Shop, a Bay Area bead store with a global reach and a local community impact strategy. Through donations of gift certificates, products, and cash, my mom's business supported organizations in the Bay Area for decades. Unfortunately The Bead Shop closed its doors in August of 2008, and since then my mom has been crafting a new business strategy. And like Seventh Generation, my mom wants her business to have a social agenda from Day One. In fact, she's being very honest about her commitment to this kind of giving back, and I couldn't be more proud. I hope you'll take a moment to read about her ideas and support her work as she creates a new business at www.beadshop.com. Way to go, mom!

Overall it was a very thought-provoking and energizing week, with lots of questions and ideas racing around in my head. And I know I've thrown a lot at you in this post. But I hope it's made you think about what kind of social contract a business might have with its community. When you see companies with philanthropy or CSR programs, do you trust them more? What makes them seem genuine to you as opposed to just a marketing ploy? And does the presence of those programs make you want to spend your money with them over their competitors? I'm very curious to hear your thoughts!

Summer of Social Good

These days I'm loving the cross-pollinating going on between social media and "social good"; that is, using Web 2.0 and platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking sites to raise awareness and create change. I was reading through my Twitterfeed today and came across a post, "10 Ways to Support Charity Through Social Media". While it's a quick rundown of a lot of ideas and strategies that most "plugged-in" change agents already know about, it did point me in one new direction today.

The Summer of Social Good is an intiative/experiment running from June 1st through August 28th with the goal of raising awareness - and money - for some very important charities: World Wildlife Fund, Oxfam America, The Humane Society and Livestrong. Run by Mashable, the hugely popular Web 2.0 and Social Media blog, the Summer of Social Good is:

...the first large scale online charitable campaign to raise funds through the power of Social Media and the Internet. The goal is to use the power of “Social Influence” via Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, blogs and other online media to raise an unprecedented amount for our fund benefiting The Humane Society, Livestrong, Oxfam America and WWF from June 1st until August 28th, 2009.

I thought this was a pretty cool idea, and as a way to show my support, I've not only Tweeted about it but I've placed the Widget in the right sidebar of The Changebase. Now, everytime you check this site between now and August 28th you can see how much money has been raised for these worthy charities. Not only that, but those talented folks at Mashable have made the Widget completely interactive: you can learn more, donate, tweet, or even share this campaign with your friends too. I hope you'll take a moment to read more about these organizations and share what you've learned with others!

Sustainable Dining at its Finest

Last weekend my husband and I went to Craigie on Main, a Cambridge, MA restaurant that has been on the top of our list for over a year. We were celebrating our first wedding anniversary, and as self-proclaimed “foodies", Craigie seemed like the perfect spot.  (For a review of our evening and the amazing meal we enjoyed, you can visit my husband’s blog See Dan Cook - yes, it’s a little shameless family plug but if you like cooking, Dan’s site is a must-read.)   Anyway, after four hours and 10+ courses, we were ready to head home. The check came, and tucked in the little pocket of the bill folder were two interesting pieces of paper. The first: a detailed survey for us to complete (the MBA in me loves surveys and the instant feedback they provide!). The second: a thin, double-sided slip of paper entitled, “Don’t just eat right with us…feel right about us”. As you can see below, the flier lists a number of ways that Craigie on Main is a committed and sustainable partner in the Cambridge food community.

 

Reading through the list of their “good deeds,” I couldn’t help but feel even more attached and loyal to my new favorite restaurant. So many companies shy away from telling their consumers what they’re doing for the community or for the environment because they worry they’ll expose themselves to criticism. After all, if you can openly claim that you reduced your paper usage by 5% this year (for example), what’s stopping someone from calling you up next year and saying, “Did you make it to 6%?”. It’s the old adage: no good deed goes unpunished.   Yet here this kind of transparency was welcome and refreshing. I felt good not just about the meal I’d enjoyed, but about supporting a restaurant that gives back in so many ways. My only critique? I wish Craigie had somehow educated me about their sustainability and responsibility practices before I actually set foot in the restaurant so that I could have made an informed decision to patronize the restaurant instead of some sort of happy accident (although in fairness this information is also listed on their website).   I know that transparency can make a company (and a person!) feel vulnerable. But, as I learned firsthand with Craigie, the relationship between that company and its customers will be so much stronger in the end. I wonder how long it'll be before we see disclaimers and pamphlets like this in other restaurants and businesses? In my opinion, it's only a matter of time until we see companies moving beyond simple eco-labelling or certification and into a more well-developed and deeper dialogue with their consumers. What do you think?