Aligning business purpose and social purpose is a cornerstone for better CSR. Examples of this include pharmaceutical companies investing in health care organizations that align with their therapeutic products, financial institutions supporting financial literacy, and electrical utilities providing free electricity to low income people.

This isn’t rocket science – it just makes good business sense and feels like the right thing to do. Aligned programs that are integrated at an operational level and well communicated internally and externally are usually very effective. (In the work we do at Impakt, this is almost always the starting point for designing and improving social purpose programs.)

CSR, however, is starting to feel ubiquitous. Even thoughtfully planned and well executed programs aren’t always delivering adequate business and social returns. In this context, sometimes it’s worth considering what it would take for your company to make a profound difference to a social issue that really matters – regardless of its alignment with who your company is and what it does. Is this the right approach for you? Here are five questions that will help assess your risk-tolerance to non-aligned CSR. 

continue reading on the Canadian Business Blog

Paul also writes a blog about Corporate Responsibility for Canadian Business online, sits on the Advisory Board for the Centre for CSR at the Queen's School for Business, and has written extensively for publications in Canada and the United States.

Last week I attended the annual convention of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC),  the world’s largest annual gathering of the mineral industry.  The convention, which included trade and mining investment shows, attracted more than 22.000 people involved in exploration, discovery and development of mines around the world, and featured more than 1,000 displays from mining companies and suppliers to the industry.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) was front and centre at PDAC. There was a specialCSR Event Series and many mining companies put a high priority on showcasing their CSR initiatives on displays and in CSR/Sustainability reports that were made available to attendees.

At PDAC, I discovered 9 areas in which mining companies can improve their CSR performance:

1. Licence to Operate: Increasing pressure from citizens and advocacy groups is causing local government stakeholders to demand more and better documentation of the social and environmental impact of mining operations. This means mining companies need credible data and new ways of modeling impact.

2. Advocacy: International advocacy organizations (including JATAM, The Mining Advocacy Network) and local organizations around the world are keeping close tabs on the impact of the mining industry. Mining companies need to pro-actively identify and engage these groups during all phases of exploration, development and operations.

As reported by Jessica Leeder in today’s Globe and Mail, Campbell Canada‘s new Six Grain Vegetable formulation, branded Nourish, is the first Canadian private-sector, not-for-profit product tailored to address the growing problem of world hunger. According to the Globe, Nourish was developed by socially conscious Campbell staffers and will only be distributed to food banks not to consumers. The intent is that Nourish will “ultimately filter into the hands of the world’s hungriest via humanitarian aid organizations, making a dent in global food insecurity.”

Ms. Leeder writes that “Nourish and the ensuing marketing effort has propelled Campbell’s into the midst of a thorny international debate over the future of humanitarian food aid and whether there is a role for a profit-driven food industry in solving hunger.”

While I haven’t been able to find any evidence of the debate (and would welcome readers to share anything that is relevant), there is a valid question to be asked: Is Nourish an authentic social purpose brand or just a smart way to increase competitive differentiation and brand loyalty among mainstream consumers?

As corporate responsibility continues to become a higher priority for consumers, regulators, shareholders, and employees, the lines between profits and purpose will continue to become more blurry. In this context how can we best discern the difference?

continue reading

According to a report released yesterday by Human Rights Watch, private security personnel employed at the Porgera gold mine in Papua New Guinea (PNG) have been implicated in alleged gang rapes and other violent abuses. The Porgera Joint Venture (PJV) mine has produced billions of dollars of gold in its twenty years of operation, and  is operated and 95 percent owned by Barrick Gold, a Canadian company that is the world’s largest gold producer.

Barrick’s response to this finding has been commendable and should be considered a best practice. Here’s why:

If you’re interested in corporate social responsibility you need to watch Rethinking Capitalism. In this video,  Harvard Business School Professor Micheal E. Porter explains why business leaders should create products and services that benefit not only the company but also society. It’s an overview of Creating Shared Value, the subject of a recent article inHarvard Business Review co-authored by Porter and Mark R. Kramer.

Here’s what you need to know about Creating Shared Value:

• Creating Shared Value is a shift in mindset: from the belief that what’s good for business is good for society to thinking that what’s good for society is actually good for business.
• Creating societal benefit is a powerful way to create economic value for firms. Professor Porter sites the environment as an example: making products that are good for the environment is a much more powerful way to create economic value than donating to environmental organizations.
• Business has “maxed-out” on meeting the conventional needs of consumers. Moving forward, the opportunity for business lies in addressing societal needs such as health and the environment.
• The current model on how to compete had been tapped-out.  The new approach to differentiation will be based on thinking deeply about human needs and directly addressing these needs in products and services.

continue reading

North American corporate cause sponsorship spending should expand by 5.0% in 2011. According to the IEG Sponsorship Report, this will be “driven by marketers seeking to earn goodwill from consumers and other stakeholders still recovering from the recessionary economy”.

A majority of Canadians consider themselves to be ethical consumers and are willing to spend more for products and services from socially responsible companies. An Abacus Data, survey conducted in late 2010 revealed that most Canadians (72%) said they would be willing to spend more for a $100 item if they were absolutely guaranteed that the item was ethically made.

What’s happening here?  The IEG research typifies the old paradigm: marketers looking for new ways (in this case, cause marketing) to sell the same old stuff. 

continue reading

Paul also writes a blog about Corporate Responsibility for Canadian Business online, sits on the Advisory Board for the Centre for CSR at the Queen's School for Business, and has written extensively for publications in Canada and the United States.

Do your CSR messages differentiate you from your competitors? Do you tell your CSR story in a way that captures the attention and imagination of your customers and your employees? I thought it would be interesting to look at some real examples – in this case from the oil and gas industry. See what you think: 

“Making the most of energy resources is about more than oil and gas production — it is about forming a global partnership for development, and creating and delivering sustainable, long-term benefits to local communities. We become an active participant in every community where we operate, and we are committed to making a positive and lasting contribution built on mutual trust and respect.” Exxon Mobil Corporation

“Purpose is now the fifth P of marketing. It’s a vital addition to the age-old marketing mix of product, price, place, and promotion,” said Mitch Markson, chief creative officer, Edelman, and the founder of Edelman goodpurpose.

Last week, Edelman released the 2010 Goodpurpose Study. The study conducted in 13 countries (Brazil, USA, UK, UAE, The Netherlands, Mexico, Japan, Italy, India, Germany, France, China and Canada) with 7,259 consumers, reports that 86% of consumers globally believe that companies need to place at least equal weight on society’s interests as they do on business’ interests.

The way corporations sponsor causes is changing dramatically. Sponsors are moving from investing in “properties” that deliver quantifiable ROI in terms of impressions, interactions, and sales to developing proprietary social programs that deliver qualitative ROI such as employee and customer trust and engagement.

Here’s the old paradigm: your corporation identifies a cause property (i.e. an event such as a Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure or the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation’s CIBC Run for the Cure), pays a sponsorship fee to the related charity, and then spends, on average, at least 75 cents per dollar of the sponsorship fee on activating the event through a combination of internal and external marketing and communications.

Here’s the new model: your corporation identifies a social issue that is aligned with its overall community investment strategy and of high relevance to employees and external stakeholders, you develop a proprietary social program and secure one or more charitable organizations as partners, you activate the social program at a much lower cost through direct participation that delivers real engagement and through social media that delivers more reach and is seen as more authentic.

What do a small chocolate maker, a global tire manufacturer, a natural-foods company and an insurance company have in common? They all believe that acting with integrity is helping their businesses perform better.

The recession was caused by a culture of capitalism that was characterized by an all-consuming pursuit of profit that put integrity on the back burner and made irresponsible business practices acceptable. As the recession eases, our expectations of corporations have changed radically. Today, we expect corporations to have a social purpose, and we need new ways to assess performance that are not just in black or red.

How should we account for the feelings that employees have toward their employers? What are the best ways to measure the bottom-line impact of a partnership with a community organization? What is the value of authenticity and transparency? What is doing the right thing really worth?

While there are no easy answers to these questions, integrity has become a common denominator to many of the intangible assets that together are adding up to a new idea about what business success looks like. And return on integrity is a new measure that will help redefine how business operates.

PricewaterhouseCoopers recently launched a global call to action for business integrity. Its framework for integrity involves: establishing integrity as a C-suite and boardroom priority; putting integrity at the core of a company's mission and making it a business, not a moral issue; establishing company codes and standards based on models recommended by leading standard-setting organizations; establishing internal controls to ensure compliance; and reinforcing standards with rewards and compensation schemes.