- Make sure employees use your products and services and that they genuinely believe they are of the highest quality

- Embrace constant change – don’t wait for something that is negatively impacting your business

- Make work fun – employees are much more productive and more innovative when they enjoy what they do, who they work with, and where they work

- Embed social and environmental considerations in your products and services – don’t sideline these things, they’re now absolutely central to business performance.

Read the book – you’ll learn lots more.

I support these student-sponsored initiatives and also have a practical suggestion for ensuring that employees of corporations, governments, and non-profits act more responsibly: get HR onside.

HR executives and managers have control over six opportunities to really entrench CSR at an operational level: job descriptions, recruitment, on-boarding, training, performance evaluation and compensation, exit interviews.

If corporate responsibility was integrated in each of these areas it would go a long way to ensuring that people who take MBA oaths actually live up to what they’ve promised,

Plus, because these are all ongoing initiatives, integrating CSR could be done for viryually no incremental cost!

The report contains some remarkable findings. Here are a few highlights:

71% think brands and companies spend too much on advertising and marketing and should put more into good causes – up almost 10 percentage points

64% would recommend a brand that supports a good cause – up from 52% last year globally

In Canada, 62% would switch brands if another brand of similar or equal quality supported a good cause , 56% would help a brand promote its products if there was a good cause behind it,  and 55% expect brands to support a good cause.

It’s become very clear that the landscape for consumers and marketers has fundamentally changed. As recently as 5 years ago, cause marketing programs were seen as sidelines to core business. Today, the business case for investing in cause is  unassailable. (In fact, the Edelman research revealed that 55% of consumers surveyed have a better opinion of corporations that integrate good causes into their business – regardless of why they do so).

As per recent posts, it’s important to remember that consumers are looking very closely at what corporations are doing in this area. That means corporate commitment to the cause must be authentic and non-profit partners must be of the highest calibre.

People I know in the corporate and non-profit sectors were shocked to find out how much Mr. O’Mahoney received wondered how the board of directors at SickKids could have agreed to such as high salary (reported as being more that the president of SickKids Hospital) and severance.

While the lens of corporate social responsibility is clearly focused on the actions of the private sector, organizations in all sectors are being held to a higher standard than ever. In my experience, most large corporations have endorsed the principles of CSR and have put checks and balances in place to ensure that their operations are as responsible as is possible. CSR standards such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) have been adopted by virtually all global corporations. And, business are doing everything they can to better understand the social and environmental outcomes of their actions.

It’s clear that non-profit organizations are not inherently responsible. I think that inappropriate behavior by third sector organizations is a violation of the public’s investment (though taxes and donations) and trust. While guidelines exist for charitable organizations (in Canada through the Canada Revenue Agency) I don’t believe that there is anything as nearly as comprehensive as GRI. (If there is, I be happy to hear about it).

To quote Mr. Obama, this is the “age of responsibility”.  Today, the public has a higher expectation than ever of organizations in all sectors and non-profits should consider reviewing and adopting the principles and practices of CSR.

Impakt’s experience supports these findings. Over the last year, we’ve seen very few clients reduce their program in this area. Today, I believe the key value drivers for corporations are: reputation, risk management, employee engagement, and external stakeholder engagement. In terms of improving performance, the questions that I’m are asked most often are: How can we better operationalize our CSR programs? How can we measure the ROI of our community investment partnerships? and What are the most cost-effective ways to increase internal and external awareness of our programs?

Highlights of the Center’s 2009 State of Corporate Citizenship in the United States report include:

• Despite upheaval in the economy, a majority of U.S. companies are not making major changes in their corporate citizenship practices. Of those who made changes 38% reduced philanthropy/giving, 27% increased layoffs, and 19% reduced R&D for sustainable products.
• Most U.S. senior executives believe business should be more involved than it is today in addressing major public issues including health care, product safety, education, and climate change. Surveyed in June, just as the national debate on health care began to intensify, some 65 percent said business should increase its involvement in this issue.
• Reputation was cited by 70% as a driver for corporate citizenship, tied for the top spot with “it fits our company traditions and values.”
• The citizenship response during the recession differed between larger and smaller companies. Large companies significantly increased their investments and involvement in citizenship activities, but were more likely to impose layoffs. Small firms stayed committed to their emphasis on treating employees well by minimizing layoffs. But they significantly decreased attention to other aspects of citizenship.
• Based on current economic conditions, 15% of companies are increasing R&D for new sustainable products; 11% are increasing corporate citizenship marketing and communications; and 10% are increasing local and/or domestic sourcing or manufacturing.
• Half of the businesses are supporting skill development for employees making less than $40,000 annually and see these efforts as boosting productivity.
• Only 34 percent of executives who responded to the survey say greater regulatory oversight by the federal government is an important part of solving the current economic crisis and creating a more stable economy.

The first episode features a conversation with James Temple, Manager of Corporate Donations at Direct Energy. James provides a wealth of information about how and why Direct Energy invests in the community. The next episode will feature Jim Johnston, Director of Environmental Sustainability at BMO Financial Group.

I welcome your comments and feedback for future topics.

In re-reading the questions I had for James it struck me that these might be helpful to others as baseline program planning considerations. Direct Energy has done its homework and is able to answer these key questions. Many other corporations I speak with are still grappling with these fundamentals.

How did your company decide on its community investment strategy? To what degree does the program reflect the social and business priorities of employees and of external stakeholders?

In what ways do your company’s partnerships with non-profit organizations address business objectives? How did you come to partner with these particular non-profits?

How do you balance the need for consistency at a corporate level with the priorities of employees and stakeholders at a local level?

Community investments are largely qualitative and difficult to measure. How does your company benchmark and assess the performance of its community programs as needed to determine the ROI?

However, in my experience, most are not able to answer the most fundamental questions including: To what degree are the most high profile (and most costly) community partnerships seen to be of value by executives? To what degree do investments in non-profit organizations support corporate business priorities? In what ways are non-profit partners able to help engage and influence employees and key external stakeholders? In what ways could partnerships be leveraged improve their performance and value?

Without having the answers to these questions, accountability simply isn’t possible.

The days of using program summaries and press clippings from non-profits to justify large community investments are over. The difficulty is that putting values on outcomes that are largely qualitative isn’t easy.

So, what’s the best (and most cost effective) approach to establishing accountability for community investments?  The first step is to ensure that both the corporation and its non-profit partner have a common understanding of the business and social criteria against which the program is to be evaluated. Next, I recommend holding conversations/consultations with internal and external stakeholders to gauge their perceptions of the partnership against the criteria that have been established. It’s not bullet-proof approach but it’s a lot better than what’s usually done.

As always, I welcome your feedback and ideas.

On May 26, Impakt will be hosting a practical and interactive half-day workshop that’s been designed specifically to help community investment managers improve the business impact of their partnerships with non-profit organizations. I’ll be facilitating the workshop along with my colleague Jon Packer, President of the Idea Workshop.

One of the key benefits of this session is how the Impact Valuation Tool can be used to improve reputation, increase differentiation and lift sales

All the details are available on the Impakt Learning Page.

On May 26, Impakt will be hosting a practical and interactive half-day workshop that’s been designed specifically to help community investment managers improve the business impact of their partnerships with non-profit organizations. I’ll be facilitating the workshop along with my colleague Jon Packer, President of the Idea Workshop.

One of the key benefits of this session is how the Impact Valuation Tool can be used to improve reputation, increase differentiation and lift sales

All the details are available on the Impakt Learning Page.

The session was another indication of how far apart the corporate and non-profit sectors really are. On the one hand, the social issues non-profits are addressing are escalating and the financial resources available to them from the public and private sector are harder to come by. In this context, there’s a realization among non-profits that a collaborative partnership-based approach is needed. On the other hand, non-profits are wary of getting too close to corporations and aren’t familiar with how corporations operate.

Corporations are in the opposite position. They need more alignment with social issues and the credibility that a partnership with a non-profit brings is invaluable and essential. However, working with non-profits is very different that working with business partners (decision-making is more complex, objectives are different, and measures of success aren’t always clear) and most “partnerships” are actually strategic donations.

I believe corporations and non-profits do need to work together as partners. In order to do this, they need to take the time to map out shared objectives, identify and leverage existing complementary resources, and have a means of measuring social and business outcomes.

And, it’s not like there isn’t a business case for corporate responsibility. Without re-stating what’s available elsewhere, there is plenty of evidence that corporate responsibility is good for the bottom line. However, for the most part, the business impacts of corporate responsibility programs are often indirect. For example, it’s clear that community investment programs contribute to employee loyalty. This in turn results, in higher productivity and lower turnover. The bottom-line benefits include lower production costs, greater innovation, lower recruitment costs, and lower training costs.

All sounds good. However, in my experience, today most aren’t executives are paying attention to indirect benefits. They want to know what the direct and short term returns will be. Corporate responsibility manager are being asked questions like “In what ways is our community investment program going to help our business this quarter?”.

Clearly, this isn’t an easy question to answer. However, it does mean that managers should be looking hard at the fundamentals to ensure that they have covered all bases. Here’s an abbreviated checklist of the questions we think are most important for corporate responsibility managers to address:

• Has an environmental audit been done and have changes been made as needed to reduce environmental impact and related costs wherever possible?
• Does the corporation know what social issues are priorities for its employees and external stakeholders and does the corporation’s community investment program address these priorities?
• Has the corporation leveraged every opportunity to create profile for corporate responsibility programs in existing communications? 
• Has the corporation explored every opportunity to integrate corporate responsibility programs into sales of its products and services?
• Has the corporation established partnerships with environmental and community organization that can add credibility and authenticity to its corporate responsibility programs, provide new sales and communications channels, and create opportunities for direct engagement through volunteering and knowledge sharing?
• Is there a system for ongoing measurement (qualitative and quantitative)  of the impact of environmental and social programs?

From what I see every day, most corporations still have a long way to do to cover the basics. However, the time for corporate responsibility managers to act is now – for more internal accountability, for the best possible short-term advantage, and for helping their corporation come out ahead in the longer term.

Yesterday was International Corporate Philanthropy Day. According to the U.S.-based Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP) the day is intended to celebrate corporate philanthropy while raising awareness of the “benefits of corporate community investment” and encouraging the business community to invest further in philanthropy.

Based on its research in this area CECP provides the following “quick tips” to help guide decision-making in corporate philanthropy.

• A great opportunity to engage senior-level management is during a strategic review (which can include establishing a signature campaign or determining grants for specific focus areas). Creating a senior executive committee can increase executive involvement and understanding of your program and ensure further commitment to your success.
• Ask the following questions when conducting a strategic review of your giving department: “Does our giving strategy suit our company today (e.g. values, assets, culture)? Does it take advantage of our capabilities? Could we be doing more in terms of both social and business impact?”
• Review your strengths for untapped resources. For some companies, a volunteer-aligned strategy taps the strengths of a wide-ranging local store/office base. For others, a deep-rooted international presence allows companies to build an international giving strategy relatively efficiently.
• Developing a compelling giving strategy that generates positive publicity and pursues impactful signature philanthropic initiatives can prove immensely helpful in unifying and preserving a company culture that has thousands of employees and multiple business units scattered around the world.

I found this to be a useful list.

These are important questions. I hope Canadian Business readers will share their views by sending in comments for others to read on this important centre for business in Canada.  I’ll also post all responses on Impakt’s corporate social purpose wiki,  

I usually do all the talking here – now I want to hear from you.

The Cause Marketing Forum reported today that Trust in US businesses fell to 38% from 58% last year, the lowest in the history of the The Edelman Trust Barometer. “It has been a catastrophic year for business,” said Richard Edelman, president and CEO, Edelman. “Business must recast its role in society and move beyond simply generating ROI to its shareholders. It must partner with government and other institutions to assume societal responsibilities.” See Mr. Edelman’s comments on Youtube after giving his Trust Barometer Report.

Mr. Hessekiel also says that this is a great opportunity for companies and causes to work together to rebuild faith in business as a positive force for change. I couldn’t agree more – we need to see this as an opportunity for corporations to establish a stronger sense of social purpose in minds of the people who matter most to them.

Now, business people have recognized that it’s the social dimension of corporations that needs to be understood and amplified. Here’s how to develop a social strategy for your corporation:

1. Understand what social/community issues are most important to your employees

2. Dig deep into your corporations history and values to find the social/community dimensions that be reflect your company’s character

3. Find out what your competitors are doing – to avoid duplication and identify untapped areas of opportunity.

4. Find out what social/community issues are most important to your external stakeholders (including, as appropriate, investors, consumers, customers, and local communities)

Imagine a venn diagram with each of the four points above as one of the circles. The sweet spot at the centre will be the focus of your social strategy.

The more difficult part is developing a program to bring the strategy to life. Who will your non-profit partners be? How will you communicate your corporation’s social purpose? How will your social strategy dovetail with your business strategy? How will you measure success?

Key factors for success for luxury will include: an in-depth understanding of what matters to customers (this means moving past conventional quantitative market research and talking to customers directly), a strategic, programmatic approach to a relevant and compelling issue (rather than a tactical cause marketing campaign), association with an issue that is highly relevant to employees and customers, a long-term commitment (short-term=low authenticity), and partnerships with non-profits that can add credibility, and a valid means of measuring program impact/outcomes.

Luxury categories that are ripe for an appropriate injection of responsibility include those are particularly conspicuous: jewelry, luxury cars, and designer clothing.

What does this mean for corporations? The past practice of keeping CSR a largely invisible sideline to core business is fading fast. More than ever, corporations need to understand what matters to their most important stakeholders and deliver on these expectations. In the “era of responsibility”, responsible business practices are now the table stakes. So, corporations “need” to do the right thing and be seen to do the right thing in terms of environmental responsibility, ethical business practices, and social engagement.

Interestingly, over the last 4 or 5 months I haven’t come across one corporation that is reducing its efforts in this area. I can’t be sure, but I’d say that this wouldn’t have been the case in previous recessions. The challenge for corporations today is answering a number of key questions including: How can we ensure that our efforts are seen as authentic and genuine? How can we measure our performance? Who can we partner with?

Want or need? I’d say need.

It’s my hope that this wiki will grow to be an engaging point of entry for discussion and debate that will help to define this vital and emerging area.