obama

Last week at the Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) Conference in New York more than 400 business leaders were asked whether President-elect Barack Obama will have a positive impact on advancing the corporate responsibility agenda.  9 out of 10 respondents believe that the Obama administration will embrace CSR.  Respondents outlined the three most important steps the Obama Administration should take to advance corporate responsibility around the world:

1. Promote major investments in renewable energy and carbon capture and storage technologies.  (67%)

2. Take measurable steps toward progress on effective, efficient and fair global climate change mitigation strategies.  (53%)

3. Initiate cross-sector collaboration among business, government, and civil society.  (42%)

Additionally, 94% anticipate increased government regulation of issues related to corporate responsibility, including climate change (86%) and corporate governance and financial transparency (83%).

Hopefully these predictions will come true.  With the President promoting investments in renewable energy and initiating cross-sector collaboration there will be even more momentum in corporate America to drive positive social change.

-Aneesa Arshad

This morning the Commerce Department reported that consumers sharply cut their spending this summer, the first quarter Americans have reduced spending since 1991.  This reduction in spending is no surprise given the current financial crisis.  Investors have lost billions of dollars in the stock market, there is a lack of liquidity in the credit markets and banking systems, and the job market is horrible.  Consumers have lost confidence in the markets and it is pivotal that this confidence is restored so that the economy can emerge from this recession.    

Our research (taken from the October Poll, NOTE: not statistically significant) suggests that corporate social responsibility could play an important role in rebuilding confidence.  Over 75% of respondents indicated that some form of CSR would moderately or strongly increase their consumer confidence, while only 5% of respondents believe CSR would decrease their confidence in a corporation.  

Our research did not dive into what CSR actions would be most helpful in rebuilding consumer confidence, but a few ideas come to mind.  Financial institutions could increase the transparency of their accounting practices and provide customers with information about responsible lending.  Corporations could invest in alternative energy or reduce their usage of water and paper to decrease operating expenses.  The adoption of more robust social strategies is one way corporations can rebuild consumer confidence and get the economy back on track.

-Andrea Box & Aneesa Arshad

The Movement

The first ever conference on Social Capital Markets took place in San Francisco last week.  The conference titled “The intersection of money and meaning” brought together more than 600 leading social entrepreneurs and investors from around the world.  Speakers included Premal Shah of Kiva.com, Katherine Fulton of Monitor Institute, and representatives from Acumen Fund, Stanford Social Innovation Review and Ashoka.  While sessions covered a range of topics, the common thread was how social enterprises can create both social impact and financial profits. 

I highly recommend reading the conference blog to learn more about what’s happening at the forefront of the social entrepreneurship movement.

From reading the blog and talking to attendees it is clear that the whole social capital arena is growing fast- really fast.  New organizations, networking websites and investment funds are popping up all the time, each with its own model of how best to raise capital for social entrepreneurs.  While the investment models range from social enterprise funds like Good Capital to VC firm New Cycle Capital to Bamboo Capital, a microfinance investments fund- what is clear is that those passionate about creating social change through a market-driven approach are putting their ideas to work.  The success of the conference is evidence of the momentum that is building in this space.

Caution

With such fast growth in this market, there is a lot of uncoordinated innovation.  Efforts should be made to ensure that new marketplaces and capital raising structures are thought out and sustainable.  Funders must also develop metrics to evaluate both financial and social returns.  The momentum and rapid growth of this movement will only be sustainable if metrics reinforce that social and financial returns can be attained through philanthropic capital.  

-Aneesa Arshad

In one of my previous posts (Market Downturn: Is CSR First to Go?) I stressed that a company’s CSR initiatives should be integrated into the business, because a strategic approach to CSR adds value both to the company and society.  Wal-Mart and General Electric have exemplified how approaching CSR as a business strategy can produce large financial gains.  General Electric has reached $14 billion in revenues from its ecomagination products and Wal-Mart has saved millions of dollars from reducing packaging.  The same logic behind these two successes is being applied to the broader market where social impact is being valued, bought and sold.  M-CRIL and the carbon market are two examples of this emerging social capital market, which is a powerful tool in addressing social problems.

 

M-CRIL

When Compartamos, a Mexican microfinance institution (MFI) went public last year, there was uproar amongst the big fish in microfinance.   Mohammad Yunus, the pioneer of microfinance, condemned the IPO and the bank’s “screwed” priorities.  He argued that a for-profit model benefits investors instead of the bank’s clients – the working poor. However, Deutsche Bank estimates that the global demand for microfinance loans is $250 billion, 10 times the amount that is being lent by MFIs.  The reality is that donations cannot meet the demand for microfinance, thus a market-oriented model is the solution.

Microfinance needs to enter the capital markets to meet the demand for loans. This is beginning to take place in India where a company called M-CRIL (Micro-Credit Ratings International Limited) is creating an equity exchange for institutions catering to MFIs and other social enterprises.  The platform is geared towards helping economically viable social investment.  This type of exchange will not only benefit investors with good returns, but it will also help enterprisers find investors.  M-CRIL is the epitome of the social capital market – an economy where social impact is valued, bought and sold.  

 

Carbon market

Another manifestation of the social capital market, where business is driving solutions to social problems, is in the growing carbon market.  Carbon trading involves the buying and selling of carbon emissions and started as a part of the Kyoto protocol. It was intended to be a low-cost way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while introducing technology to poor countries and helping their citizens escape poverty. Last year, $60 billion worth of emission allowances were bought and sold in Europe and Japan. It is expected that if carbon regulations come to the U.S., America’s carbon-trading market will grow to be worth $1 trillion by 2020.  The carbon market and platforms like M-CRIL are hopefully the first of many new market incentives for social change.

 

-Aneesa Arshad

A recent article in Business Week highlights how quote-unquote socially responsible investing has resulted in billions of dollars of losses for the state of California.  An investment initiative named “Double Bottom Line,” by then California State Treasurer Philip Angelides, took pension fund money out of tobacco stocks and emerging markets and reinvested it in real estate in low-income communities.

In establishing his own criteria for SRI (for example- whether or not a country has free press or protects workers rights), Angelides eliminated investments in Thailand, China, India and Russia among others.  As a result, the Thai stock market fell 7 percent in just two days after the list came out! These screens beg the question: why is it socially irresponsible to invest in developing countries? Another decision removed investments in tobacco stocks – a decision which cost the fund more than $1 billion! So when will the world of SRI see past the stigma of tobacco companies?  (See post from June 18th) Even worse, what was sold to the public as investment in low-income communities also included investing in luxury high-rise condos.  Since when is gentrification socially responsible?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against SRI, but in this case, investments under the guise of SRI have resulted in a mishandling of the pension fund money of California’s state teachers and public employees.  SRI shouldn’t be unprofitable and the metrics for determining what is an SRI need to be reexamined.  Socially responsible citizens shouldn’t have their pensions jeopardized by irresponsible investing.

-Aneesa Arshad

For many college graduates today, the quintessential decision to “make money” or “do good” is becoming less black and white. This group of young people – the Millennial Generation – has grown up in an age of technology that is dramatically changing how we view the world and our role in it. With the internet at our fingertips, we have access to on-the-ground, citizen-generated knowledge, and with this limitless exposure, young people have yearned to travel more to experience far away continents and the challenges that exist there.

As these advances have reduced the information gap, our global community has grown closer and this reality has colored how young people see their future lives. It has become impossible to ignore poverty and with trends towards citizen-driven social change, we feel more empowered to make a difference. Today students are not just asking, “Why not do something?” but “How can we not do something?”

In the past, these altruistic leanings were for those willing to pursue careers that required them to sacrifice their financial sustainability to feed the hungry, but today young people are challenging this tradeoff – “make money” or “do good” – by demanding careers that satisfy both needs. In counseling the undergraduate students that participate in my program, campusCATALYST, the resounding chorus is that these young people want to have their cake and eat it too, and in turn, they are searching for potential employers who have the same mission-driven priorities.

Yet it is not only wide-eyed college-aged idealists who are re-envisioning their future careers – this trend is also running its course with MBA graduates. In a recent survey conducted at Stanford Graduate School of Business, of 759 graduating MBA’s at 11 top business schools, corporate social responsibility ranked third of their most important values when selecting an employer, and even more surprising was MBA graduates’ willingness to take a sizeable salary cut as a tradeoff for a firm with that exhibited strong social values. Across the country, it is clear that tomorrow’s leaders are looking for something different – a lifestyle that integrates social responsibility in both career and personal life.

But are firms listening? According to a McKinsey Global Survey on the state of corporate philanthropy, they should. CEO’s globally have indicated that they feel growing pressure from shareholders, employees and consumers alike to be more conscious global citizens. In response, companies around the world have been retooling their CSR programs to not only build reputation or brand, as has been the past trend, but also to build employee capabilities and improve employee recruitment and retention. Yet at present, only about one fifth of respondents feel that their corporate philanthropy programs are “very or extremely effective at meeting social goals and stakeholder expectations.”

With a burgeoning demand for greater firm engagement in the social good, it appears to be time for companies to sit down and reassess their priorities and practices if they hope to continue recruiting and retaining top candidates.

-Molly Day

Molly Day is the co-founder and executive director of campusCATALYST, a student-driven consulting corps for non-profits.  campusCATALYST matches community nonprofits with five-member teams of undergraduate “community analysts” supervised by MBA students and a professor.  The teams act as pro-bono business consultants for a 10-week engagement to help the nonprofits develop partners in the community, strengthen infrastructure and improve marketing, communications and development.   The program was launched at Northwestern University in 2007 and has expanded to the University of Chicago.

A recent blog post by Dan Gray brings up the interesting question, “Can CSR survive a recession?” The fact of the matter is that for companies still operating under the model of “CSR as PR,” the viability of CSR during a market downturn is feeble, and upsets in the economy will easily result in significant CSR cutbacks.  However, when social strategy evolves within a company so that it is not only advantageous to corporate image, but also to financial success, CSR will not only outlast a market downturn, but can actually help a company to thrive during such a time (through consumer loyalty and employee retention). To achieve this outcome, however, companies must align social impact outcomes with what the business values.  When companies choose to address a social issue that is relevant to their activities and competitiveness, the company’s CSR will add value both to the firm and to society.

In fact, the future of CSR is social strategy that drives business.  Patagonia and REI are two companies that have done an impressive job of integrating CSR into their business in a way that has increased profits.

-Aneesa Arshad

Last week in Japan, the United States and other members of the G8 set a non-binding goal to “curb their emissions within a decade or two.”  This declaration, hyped to be the Bush administration’s major effort to address climate change, is anything but encouraging.  The statement is vague, non-committal, and extremely disappointing; it highlights the ongoing failure by the U.S. government to take decisive action on climate change. Thus, if a change is to be achieved, private entities must elect to act independently.

Increasing amounts of pressure and responsibility are now falling on corporations to take on the challenge of climate change through their philanthropies and through sustainable production.  The threat of climate change has heightened the importance of CSR.  CSR for corporations has now become more than fulfilling a social responsibility, it is a necessity if we are to avert climate catastrophe.

Even though the issue of climate change is complex and there are few short-term results, corporations can greatly contribute to a solution.  Corporations should first look internally and reevaluate resource extraction, recycling, the sustainability of their products and their supply chains.  For example, BP, Amoco and Shell Oil have set measurable corporate targets and specific timetables for emissions reduction and energy efficiency improvements.

Externally, corporations should consider focusing on a specific geographic region or vehicle of change, policy reform, for example.  Corporations should also identify strategic leverage points, such as lobbying and R&D and combine efforts.  Environmental grantmaking and sustainable practices are pivotal to the climate protection movement.

-Aneesa Arshad

A recent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Smoke and Mirrors: Can a tobacco company ever be socially responsible? challenges an unwritten rule of corporate social responsibility (CSR): tobacco companies need not apply.  However, reflection on the trends shaping the next generation of CSR and its associated discipline, socially responsible investing (SRI), raises a slightly uncomfortable question: maybe a socially responsible tobacco company isn’t an oxymoron after all.

There are many, good reasons not to like tobacco. Smoking causes problems:  health problems, social problems, environmental problems.  These are regrettable.  But, until we prohibit the production and consumption of tobacco, is it right to demonize companies that fill a demand for a legal product? Is it rational to assume that by the very nature of their product, tobacco companies are incapable of producing valuable social good in other arenas, as an employer, community partner, or corporate funder? If not, are the worlds of CSR and SRI ready to see past the stigma that cloaks tobacco companies, and make an honest assessment of their social and environmental performance?

I think so. The market shift from negative exclusionary screening to best in class analysis of a company’s performance against environmental, social and governance (ESG) indicators has opened up a new world for companies traditionally excluded from the SRI space.  For the first time, SRI analysts and CSR are envisioning what a socially responsible tobacco, alcohol, or gambling company looks like.

This is an important milestone.  The next big hurdle for socially responsible investing in its march toward the mainstream will be to take the emotion out of the analysis—and recognize the potential of all companies, regardless of their business, to capitalize on the social and economic power of CSR. 

-Claire Moroni

This week, Joel Makower’s blog post Exxon, the Rockefellers, and the Future of Big Oil,  raises an intriguing proposition: can increased investment in sustainability safeguard the financial future of Exxon Mobil, an icon of American capitalism?

As he makes his case, Makower illustrates a point that continues to be provocative & controversial – CSR and capitalism aren’t such strange bedfellows after all. When designed well, corporate social responsibility programs advance the darling of every capitalist heart: sustained profitability & growth.

And that is OK! Empowering CSR to act as a market force is not blasphemy, its business.  In fact, it’s good business that is uniquely positioned to benefit both society and the economy. 

Should we distrust a company who invests in clean technology in order to increase market share?  Should we question a firm who pays employees for their volunteer time as a means to recruit & retain top talent?  Should we be wary of companies who strengthen relationships with key customers through social and environmental programming?  Of course not.

For all of us in the CSR space, its time for a reality check.  Let’s stop engaging in corporate morality, and focus on market reality: unless companies can shape CSR as means to advance their own best interest, CSR will never reach its full potential as engine of good for society and business. 

Next Page »