Quanta Corporate Citizenship A snapshot of CSR wages 16/06/2010
Acre has published its annual report on wages of CSR practitioners, and it provides an interesting snapshot about how the sector is operating:
More than a third of CSR practitioners have no budgetary responsibility and two thirds manage less than US$500k, the same proportion of those who work in teams of 9 or less people. As a matter of fact, less than a quarter have more than 3 direct reports. These four elements are good indicators that companies still treat CSR as a relatively unimportant issue.
The majority of in-house practitioners (56%) are individuals who used to work in other functions within the company, i.e., they had to (or are) developing on the job expertise, instead of arriving at their new positions with previous CSR experience. As a matter of fact, the current position is the very first contact with CSR for more than half of those interviewed.
Salary wise, the UK is where the CSR practitioners experience the lowest salaries. As a matter of fact, salaries are 20% lower in the UK when compared to the US, even though the cost of living in the UK is significantly higher.
More than a third of CSR practitioners have no budgetary responsibility and two thirds manage less than US$500k, the same proportion of those who work in teams of 9 or less people. As a matter of fact, less than a quarter have more than 3 direct reports. These four elements are good indicators that companies still treat CSR as a relatively unimportant issue.
The majority of in-house practitioners (56%) are individuals who used to work in other functions within the company, i.e., they had to (or are) developing on the job expertise, instead of arriving at their new positions with previous CSR experience. As a matter of fact, the current position is the very first contact with CSR for more than half of those interviewed.
Salary wise, the UK is where the CSR practitioners experience the lowest salaries. As a matter of fact, salaries are 20% lower in the UK when compared to the US, even though the cost of living in the UK is significantly higher.
Bonuses are also significantly lower in the UK than in the US and Europe, where the bonuses are, on average, around 50% higher, even though bonuses rarely exceed US$10k. Only 31% receive more than US$10k per year, and less than 10% receive more than US$30k per year.
The UK is clearly still playing catch up. By paying lower salaries and bonuses, companies are probably capturing employees in the earlier stages of their careers and also signalling that CSR is still not a top priority, whilst in the US and in the rest of Europe it is quickly becoming a board issue. A clear signal that the UK is not immune to this global trend, though, is that in the last year, despite the financial crisis, UK practitioners experienced salary gains of over 10%, while the percentage of CSR practitioners earning more than £80k has jumped from 12% to 17%.
The UK is clearly still playing catch up. By paying lower salaries and bonuses, companies are probably capturing employees in the earlier stages of their careers and also signalling that CSR is still not a top priority, whilst in the US and in the rest of Europe it is quickly becoming a board issue. A clear signal that the UK is not immune to this global trend, though, is that in the last year, despite the financial crisis, UK practitioners experienced salary gains of over 10%, while the percentage of CSR practitioners earning more than £80k has jumped from 12% to 17%.
Add Comment
Corporate social responsibility is this season’s fashionable word, probably second only to sustainability. And as it happens to every buzzword, there is a substantial amount of noise mixed up with reality. When it comes to CSR investment, there are things we know will work and things we know won't work. But, the vast majority are still things we suspect work and things we wish worked because it makes us feel good. But, frankly, this is just wishful thinking and a sure fire recipe for corporate disappointment.
There is still very limited academic research around CSR that is really relevant for companies. There are a lot of reviews of reviews, a lot of good-looking academic frameworks, but when it comes to really hard evidence, very few pieces of work – such as the one by Ioannis Ioannou and George Serafeim, we’ve discussed here not long ago – pass the tests of reliability and relevance.
And then there is the dangerous territory: things we want to believe, but are not necessarily true, let alone proven. We’ve recently spoken in this same space about how a survey found out that, contrary to our long held belief, people who invest on green products do not act more socially responsibly. Actually, they tend to act less socially responsibly once they’ve made that green commitment. And the more we research this area, the more we will find evidences against our wishful thinking.
And, finally, there are the things that we suspect based on observations, but where there is still no academic research to prove it.
In this group of things we suspect but can’t prove, probably the most relevant is that great CSR does not create great culture. This is because the concept of great culture is a subjective one . Suffice to see how the recent financial crisis left many company corpses along the road, many of whom used to be regarded as bastions of great cultures.
If anything, our anecdotal evidence points in the opposite direction: great cultures (or, to be specific, great leadership cultures) create great CSR. But, frankly, there is no scientific evidence to prove it. What we know is based on our experience, but that does not make it scientifically proven.
And this is also connected to the biggest problem middle managers – especially CSR managers – have in advocating CSR commitments within their companies: there is no proof that those commitments will work, and those very limited commitments that are scientifically proven to work (or not) are things that everybody else is already doing (and often have already been forced on them in form of laws and regulations by national governments). So, in one hand they have line managers demanding innovative approaches and reassurance that their investments will generated the expected results, but they can’t give that reassurance without first committing to invest on them. On the other hand, they have a very limited portfolio of potential commitments that they know will work because academic research has proven that they work; but the only reason why academics have been able to prove they work is because there is a wide enough pool of evidence constituted by the investments done by thousands of companies, and, in that case, the innovation element is no longer there: the organisation, at best, will play a me-too strategy.
And that is why great leadership cultures generate great CSR investments: because they are open to the risk involved in trying to innovate, and they know the risks are worth taking because they understand their own strategic objectives, the potential rewards and the underlying challenges.
- Gus
There is still very limited academic research around CSR that is really relevant for companies. There are a lot of reviews of reviews, a lot of good-looking academic frameworks, but when it comes to really hard evidence, very few pieces of work – such as the one by Ioannis Ioannou and George Serafeim, we’ve discussed here not long ago – pass the tests of reliability and relevance.
And then there is the dangerous territory: things we want to believe, but are not necessarily true, let alone proven. We’ve recently spoken in this same space about how a survey found out that, contrary to our long held belief, people who invest on green products do not act more socially responsibly. Actually, they tend to act less socially responsibly once they’ve made that green commitment. And the more we research this area, the more we will find evidences against our wishful thinking.
And, finally, there are the things that we suspect based on observations, but where there is still no academic research to prove it.
In this group of things we suspect but can’t prove, probably the most relevant is that great CSR does not create great culture. This is because the concept of great culture is a subjective one . Suffice to see how the recent financial crisis left many company corpses along the road, many of whom used to be regarded as bastions of great cultures.
If anything, our anecdotal evidence points in the opposite direction: great cultures (or, to be specific, great leadership cultures) create great CSR. But, frankly, there is no scientific evidence to prove it. What we know is based on our experience, but that does not make it scientifically proven.
And this is also connected to the biggest problem middle managers – especially CSR managers – have in advocating CSR commitments within their companies: there is no proof that those commitments will work, and those very limited commitments that are scientifically proven to work (or not) are things that everybody else is already doing (and often have already been forced on them in form of laws and regulations by national governments). So, in one hand they have line managers demanding innovative approaches and reassurance that their investments will generated the expected results, but they can’t give that reassurance without first committing to invest on them. On the other hand, they have a very limited portfolio of potential commitments that they know will work because academic research has proven that they work; but the only reason why academics have been able to prove they work is because there is a wide enough pool of evidence constituted by the investments done by thousands of companies, and, in that case, the innovation element is no longer there: the organisation, at best, will play a me-too strategy.
And that is why great leadership cultures generate great CSR investments: because they are open to the risk involved in trying to innovate, and they know the risks are worth taking because they understand their own strategic objectives, the potential rewards and the underlying challenges.
- Gus
Greenmasking? 03/04/2010
A recent paper called Do Green Products Make Us Better People?, by Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, from the University of Toronto, found that consumers exposed to green products behave differently from consumers who actually buy those products. According to their findings, “while mere exposure can activate concepts related to social responsibility and ethical conduct and induce corresponding behaviors, purchasing green products may produce the counterintuitive effect of licensing asocial and unethical behaviors by establishing moral credentials. Thus, green products do not necessarily make us better people”. In other words, “purchasing green products will reduce subsequent altruism because it establishes moral credentials” and “that can subsequently license deviating behavior”.
This is yet another piece in a growing jigsaw of studies that show that human beings often act in a way that is fundamentally different from their inner values. They act in a way that fits what is perceived to be the ‘right’ behaviour; however, once they have ticked the social expectation box, they believe they have earned enough ‘credits’ to do something that is morally unacceptable. Apparently we believe that, if we do more than others, we can counterbalance our good deeds by misbehaving elsewhere.
Now let’s think about what is going on in the corporate world. Less than a decade ago, students at top business schools were debating the best excuses to justify briberies, and attempts to introduce CSR classes were being pulled because so few students were interested. The few ‘green’ projects were a laughing matter among mainstream executives, and corporate citizenship was viewed as a post-hippie ideology, and their few corporate champions used to be frowned upon, with the healthy degree of suspicion reserved to the utopians, and their careers were carefully sidetracked to minimize their potential negative impact on their companies. Suddenly, less than a decade later, all companies are ‘green’ and it has become fashionable to be environmentally conscious.
But have we truly become responsible human beings in a responsible society in such a short decade? Or are we just behaving in a way that is socially acceptable? And, worst, will we use these moral credentials to offset our misbehaviours elsewhere?
If we look at the recent responses McKinsey received from almost 2 thousand executives when it asked why their companies invested on sustainability, it is evident that the vast majority are still primarily focused on reputation management. Only 1 in 5 is doing it because it is linked to its corporate goals. The situation becomes even worse among those operating in the B2C sphere, where the number of those who are doing it to manage their reputation is 2.5 times the number of those who are doing it because it is aligned to their strategic objectives.
This is yet another piece in a growing jigsaw of studies that show that human beings often act in a way that is fundamentally different from their inner values. They act in a way that fits what is perceived to be the ‘right’ behaviour; however, once they have ticked the social expectation box, they believe they have earned enough ‘credits’ to do something that is morally unacceptable. Apparently we believe that, if we do more than others, we can counterbalance our good deeds by misbehaving elsewhere.
Now let’s think about what is going on in the corporate world. Less than a decade ago, students at top business schools were debating the best excuses to justify briberies, and attempts to introduce CSR classes were being pulled because so few students were interested. The few ‘green’ projects were a laughing matter among mainstream executives, and corporate citizenship was viewed as a post-hippie ideology, and their few corporate champions used to be frowned upon, with the healthy degree of suspicion reserved to the utopians, and their careers were carefully sidetracked to minimize their potential negative impact on their companies. Suddenly, less than a decade later, all companies are ‘green’ and it has become fashionable to be environmentally conscious.
But have we truly become responsible human beings in a responsible society in such a short decade? Or are we just behaving in a way that is socially acceptable? And, worst, will we use these moral credentials to offset our misbehaviours elsewhere?
If we look at the recent responses McKinsey received from almost 2 thousand executives when it asked why their companies invested on sustainability, it is evident that the vast majority are still primarily focused on reputation management. Only 1 in 5 is doing it because it is linked to its corporate goals. The situation becomes even worse among those operating in the B2C sphere, where the number of those who are doing it to manage their reputation is 2.5 times the number of those who are doing it because it is aligned to their strategic objectives.
What will happen if, like the human beings leading them, companies who are ‘green’ use their green masks to offset their citizenship shortfalls elsewhere? Are these green investments being used to justify less socially responsible attitudes elsewhere? Suddenly, all companies are ‘green’, but how many are truly interested in being good citizens? And for how long can this last?
The danger is that this green bubble will eventually burst and generate its opposite, creating an enormous ‘green vacuum’ surrounded by scepticism, in the same that, when the internet bubble burst, no one trusted even the sound dotcoms and, when the mortgage bubble burst, the loan market dried even to reliable borrowers. The ‘green vacuum’ it will leave behind will have massive negative effect that goes well beyond the corporate realm.
Furthermore, because many organisations are portraying a green behaviour but are not even aware of their own corporate personality, many aspects of their corporate citizenship are being overlooked. Many companies are forgetting (or are unaware) that corporate citizenship also covers a myriad of other issues and stakeholders, such as employees, shareholders, consumers, government, local communities, supply chain, competitors etc. If companies are acting as human beings, and by buying ‘green credentials’ they are allowing themselves to act irresponsibly on other fronts, they should at least start thinking about how to brace themselves for the wave of problems ahead, from bad press to customer criticism, from shareholder lawsuits to government intervention.
It is naïve to imagine that all these stakeholders will not eventually increase the level of public scrutiny against companies they might believe are using green investments to cover up their lack of commitment in other areas of the citizenship spectrum. And our experience has shown us that, for all these stakeholders, worse than not doing anything is falling into discredit because they don’t trust your actions and intentions anymore. The amount of effort, time and resources required to recover from a discredited position is much higher, and they often do not succeed.
- Gus
The danger is that this green bubble will eventually burst and generate its opposite, creating an enormous ‘green vacuum’ surrounded by scepticism, in the same that, when the internet bubble burst, no one trusted even the sound dotcoms and, when the mortgage bubble burst, the loan market dried even to reliable borrowers. The ‘green vacuum’ it will leave behind will have massive negative effect that goes well beyond the corporate realm.
Furthermore, because many organisations are portraying a green behaviour but are not even aware of their own corporate personality, many aspects of their corporate citizenship are being overlooked. Many companies are forgetting (or are unaware) that corporate citizenship also covers a myriad of other issues and stakeholders, such as employees, shareholders, consumers, government, local communities, supply chain, competitors etc. If companies are acting as human beings, and by buying ‘green credentials’ they are allowing themselves to act irresponsibly on other fronts, they should at least start thinking about how to brace themselves for the wave of problems ahead, from bad press to customer criticism, from shareholder lawsuits to government intervention.
It is naïve to imagine that all these stakeholders will not eventually increase the level of public scrutiny against companies they might believe are using green investments to cover up their lack of commitment in other areas of the citizenship spectrum. And our experience has shown us that, for all these stakeholders, worse than not doing anything is falling into discredit because they don’t trust your actions and intentions anymore. The amount of effort, time and resources required to recover from a discredited position is much higher, and they often do not succeed.
- Gus
The direction we set course for 30/03/2010
The angle at which our planet points to the stars is known by astronomers as the Obliquity of the ecliptic. The obliquity changes over a 41 thousand year cycle, but even its tiny daily changes causes our sun’s angle to vary above the horizon throughout the year and, of course, cause our seasons, long droughts, rainy rains, etc.
The impact that small changes have in our lives is tremendous. The whole Chaos Theory – normally exemplified by the Butterfly effect – is based on the importance of small changes.
This is why the best companies companies spend time assessing, analysing and debating their next moves and those of their competitors. The small changes on the angle they chose to adopt, the direction they point their businesses in will produce an outcome, a summer or a winter.
But how well are the majority of companies doing at preparing their businesses to ensure their CSR is pointing in the right direction?
For many companies, the important thing is to align their so-called CSR programmes to their company’s short-term objectives, to tick regulatory boxes and the industry standards. This sets the direction for their CSR journey and it creates a means to justify their actions. Rationale becomes a way out and away from any criticism that may consider CSR as nothing more than greenwashing. It was Benjamin Franklin that wrote “so convenient a thing is it to be reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one had a mind to do.”
The economist John Kay has just published a book entitled ‘Obliquity’, in which he discusses the means to which we achieve our goals in business. The aim of maximising short-term value, he argues, is often the very thing that ends up destroying the means to deliver that aim, the company itself. By over focusing on what we aim to have – the pursuit of wealth – we forget to focus on what is required to achieve that goal: our product, our people, our clients, the business itself. The consequence is that we risk never achieving our goal by focusing on it alone.
The direction we set for our corporate citizenship has to be built on more than short-term stakeholder expectations, government regulations, rankings or post fact rationalisation if it is to successfully take us to our desired destination: long-term growth and value generation. We need to build it into the culture of our organisations; into our corporate DNA. We need to build organisations that genuinely care about their activities and the success will follow.
- Kim
The impact that small changes have in our lives is tremendous. The whole Chaos Theory – normally exemplified by the Butterfly effect – is based on the importance of small changes.
This is why the best companies companies spend time assessing, analysing and debating their next moves and those of their competitors. The small changes on the angle they chose to adopt, the direction they point their businesses in will produce an outcome, a summer or a winter.
But how well are the majority of companies doing at preparing their businesses to ensure their CSR is pointing in the right direction?
For many companies, the important thing is to align their so-called CSR programmes to their company’s short-term objectives, to tick regulatory boxes and the industry standards. This sets the direction for their CSR journey and it creates a means to justify their actions. Rationale becomes a way out and away from any criticism that may consider CSR as nothing more than greenwashing. It was Benjamin Franklin that wrote “so convenient a thing is it to be reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one had a mind to do.”
The economist John Kay has just published a book entitled ‘Obliquity’, in which he discusses the means to which we achieve our goals in business. The aim of maximising short-term value, he argues, is often the very thing that ends up destroying the means to deliver that aim, the company itself. By over focusing on what we aim to have – the pursuit of wealth – we forget to focus on what is required to achieve that goal: our product, our people, our clients, the business itself. The consequence is that we risk never achieving our goal by focusing on it alone.
The direction we set for our corporate citizenship has to be built on more than short-term stakeholder expectations, government regulations, rankings or post fact rationalisation if it is to successfully take us to our desired destination: long-term growth and value generation. We need to build it into the culture of our organisations; into our corporate DNA. We need to build organisations that genuinely care about their activities and the success will follow.
- Kim
Our experience has shown us that CSR is the outcome of four sets of variables: the company’s ‘DNA’, the company’s ‘personality’, the company’s environment, and the decisions the company takes.
DNA: Just like human beings, companies have inherent strengths and weaknesses from their birth that determine their limits. These organisational limits might be determined by their financial strengths (i.e., their ability to attract investors), product/service line (i.e., which kind of business they are setup to offer), their human capital (what kind of human resources and leaders they have on board from the very start), etc. The important element here is that this “corporate DNA” might dictate limits and overall shapes, but does not, per se, establish a destiny. More importantly, by working on the other 3 dimensions, organisations can overcome some of their limits and learn how to achieve more, despite their inherent DNA by developing or adopting different ways of generating the same results through different methods.
Environment: The environment(s) where an organisation operates also shapes it by both, selecting certain characteristics that help organisations and their initiatives to survive and flourish, as well as eliminating organisations or initiatives that cannot produce adequate results. The environment is dictated by things such as competition, consumers and consumption trends, supply chain, potential substitutes, new players, media, regulation and technology. In the same way that a tree becomes stronger or weaker depending on how it interacts, leverages and responds to the environment around it, an organisation’s ability to be effective is also influenced by its environment(s). As with the DNA, the environment might set constraints and open opportunities, but the final outcome is not dictated by it alone, but by the combination of all four dimensions.
Personality: Among the 4 dimensions, the corporate personality is generally the one the organisation is less aware of, and therefore the one that more frequently generates frustration to those trying to lead and implement effective CSR initiatives. An organisation’s underlying cultural predisposition to think, act and communicate in certain ways tend to influence how it leverages its strengths and deals with its weaknesses, how it interacts with its environments, how it takes decisions and what kind of decisions it tends to take. Being aware of those personality traits not only helps the organisation to deal with their potential shortcomings and leverage their untapped potentials, but also helps the organisation to unleash previously constrained opportunities presented by the other dimensions as well as overcome barriers posed by them.
Decision: How decisions are taken, who takes them, what kind of decisions are taken by an organisation, as well as what kind of decisions are not taken by an organisation also dictates how effectively it operates. Decisions – both their content and format – are influenced by the other 3 dimensions, but also influence them. The way decisions are taken, and what kind of decisions are taken highlights some aspects of the organisations personality in detriment of others, shapes the operating environment in certain ways and not others, and leverages some strengths or exposes some weaknesses, instead of others.
- Gus
Environment: The environment(s) where an organisation operates also shapes it by both, selecting certain characteristics that help organisations and their initiatives to survive and flourish, as well as eliminating organisations or initiatives that cannot produce adequate results. The environment is dictated by things such as competition, consumers and consumption trends, supply chain, potential substitutes, new players, media, regulation and technology. In the same way that a tree becomes stronger or weaker depending on how it interacts, leverages and responds to the environment around it, an organisation’s ability to be effective is also influenced by its environment(s). As with the DNA, the environment might set constraints and open opportunities, but the final outcome is not dictated by it alone, but by the combination of all four dimensions.
Personality: Among the 4 dimensions, the corporate personality is generally the one the organisation is less aware of, and therefore the one that more frequently generates frustration to those trying to lead and implement effective CSR initiatives. An organisation’s underlying cultural predisposition to think, act and communicate in certain ways tend to influence how it leverages its strengths and deals with its weaknesses, how it interacts with its environments, how it takes decisions and what kind of decisions it tends to take. Being aware of those personality traits not only helps the organisation to deal with their potential shortcomings and leverage their untapped potentials, but also helps the organisation to unleash previously constrained opportunities presented by the other dimensions as well as overcome barriers posed by them.
Decision: How decisions are taken, who takes them, what kind of decisions are taken by an organisation, as well as what kind of decisions are not taken by an organisation also dictates how effectively it operates. Decisions – both their content and format – are influenced by the other 3 dimensions, but also influence them. The way decisions are taken, and what kind of decisions are taken highlights some aspects of the organisations personality in detriment of others, shapes the operating environment in certain ways and not others, and leverages some strengths or exposes some weaknesses, instead of others.
- Gus
I strongly recommend Muhammad Yunus’ second book, ‘Creating a World Without Poverty – Social Business and the Future of Capitalism’. Yunus’ remarkable success as the founder of the Grameen Bank, which pioneered the microcredit concept and used entrepreneurship to lift people out of poverty, led him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. With such social success to back his argument, his thoughts on the role of companies in achieving positive social change through corporate social responsibility are very insightful.
Yunus argues early on that through weak or strong CSR programmes, companies will operate either on a level of ‘do no harm to people or planet’ or ‘do good for people and planet’ respectively. Neither of these behaviours will come about if there is a risk to profit and this is the underlying problem with CSR. Why? Because companies have a fundamental responsibility to their shareholders and shareholders measure by profit alone.
This reasoning raised a lot of questions for me in light of Quanta’s work and recent reading I have been doing. One of the key questions that came to mind, was whether we are doing a good enough job as companies in informing our shareholders of the important expectations that other key stakeholders have? Are stakeholders underestimating the value of better social behaviour by their companies or are we failing to make them aware of it?
Marketing firm MS&L Worldwide wrote recently about what they consider to be the new consumer DNA, which has come about following a ‘values recalibration’ with this key stakeholder group. They found that consumers are now looking for companies to demonstrate a social relevance in everything they say and do and that brand distinction (a commonly recognised profit tool) comes about when consumers are engaged in ways ‘that take them to a different, more positive, emotional place’. Sounds remarkably like the effect of a great CSR programme.
Another key stakeholder group for our shareholders to be considering is of course our employees. HR managers across the country are looking for ways to stop employee disengagement and inertia that comes with insecurity in a workforce, so, again, are we overlooking the value of good CSR programmes to keep employee morale and activity high? A Quanta client recently told us that whilst 14% of its workforce was being made redundant a staggering 80% of employees said the CSR programme was essential and had to continue despite the economic climate. It was the only business practice that employees identified should remain the same in light of such significant changes going on within the company. It was the activity employees could rally around and find comfort in.
And of course our stakeholders don’t stop at our consumers or employees, we have our suppliers, government, competitors, society, the environment and not for profit sector to consider. When we listen to all of our stakeholders then we may start to hear a voice intrinsic to profit making that even shareholders cannot ignore. Whilst the rest of Yunus’ book takes us on a voyage through the merits of social enterprises, led by social impact not profit, I cannot help but wonder if the financial crisis and our ‘values recalibration’ as consumers, employees, society, suppliers etc. is giving the corporate sector the space to become social change makers.
For us at Quanta this is the exciting frontier for development. It is why we work on a strategic level with our clients to open their decision making process up to all of their key stakeholder expectations and show them the value of a CSR programme aligned with their business objectives.
- Kim
Yunus argues early on that through weak or strong CSR programmes, companies will operate either on a level of ‘do no harm to people or planet’ or ‘do good for people and planet’ respectively. Neither of these behaviours will come about if there is a risk to profit and this is the underlying problem with CSR. Why? Because companies have a fundamental responsibility to their shareholders and shareholders measure by profit alone.
This reasoning raised a lot of questions for me in light of Quanta’s work and recent reading I have been doing. One of the key questions that came to mind, was whether we are doing a good enough job as companies in informing our shareholders of the important expectations that other key stakeholders have? Are stakeholders underestimating the value of better social behaviour by their companies or are we failing to make them aware of it?
Marketing firm MS&L Worldwide wrote recently about what they consider to be the new consumer DNA, which has come about following a ‘values recalibration’ with this key stakeholder group. They found that consumers are now looking for companies to demonstrate a social relevance in everything they say and do and that brand distinction (a commonly recognised profit tool) comes about when consumers are engaged in ways ‘that take them to a different, more positive, emotional place’. Sounds remarkably like the effect of a great CSR programme.
Another key stakeholder group for our shareholders to be considering is of course our employees. HR managers across the country are looking for ways to stop employee disengagement and inertia that comes with insecurity in a workforce, so, again, are we overlooking the value of good CSR programmes to keep employee morale and activity high? A Quanta client recently told us that whilst 14% of its workforce was being made redundant a staggering 80% of employees said the CSR programme was essential and had to continue despite the economic climate. It was the only business practice that employees identified should remain the same in light of such significant changes going on within the company. It was the activity employees could rally around and find comfort in.
And of course our stakeholders don’t stop at our consumers or employees, we have our suppliers, government, competitors, society, the environment and not for profit sector to consider. When we listen to all of our stakeholders then we may start to hear a voice intrinsic to profit making that even shareholders cannot ignore. Whilst the rest of Yunus’ book takes us on a voyage through the merits of social enterprises, led by social impact not profit, I cannot help but wonder if the financial crisis and our ‘values recalibration’ as consumers, employees, society, suppliers etc. is giving the corporate sector the space to become social change makers.
For us at Quanta this is the exciting frontier for development. It is why we work on a strategic level with our clients to open their decision making process up to all of their key stakeholder expectations and show them the value of a CSR programme aligned with their business objectives.
- Kim
