Diary of an Intern: My Summer in Corporate Giving

It's amazing to say it, but last week I finished up my corporate philanthropy internship at ABC. The summer just flew by! In all, it was a really terrific experience that challenged me to think creatively and strategically about how to educate employees about our corporate giving program and how they can get involved. More than that, it was an opportunity to brainstorm and devise an action plan for how the organization can use philanthropy as a strategic advantage in business. I've given a pretty good overview of my internship in other posts on The Changebase (Learning How to Communicate Change, for example, or one of my Recap posts), so I won't spend too much time talking about my projects. In general, I split my time between two main areas:

• Communications: this summer was all about the "Socialization of Corporate Giving" at ABC - which basically meant coming up with ways to educate our employees and leadership team about our program, how they could get involved, and perhaps most importantly, why it's good for our business. Within communications I focused on creating educational campaigns to let employees know about their option to donate product to charity; redesigning and expanding our program's presence on the company intranet; building out a more robust employee volunteer choice system (letting employees nominate nonprofits to work with beyond our network of partner organizations); and generally raising awareness and involving employees in the conversation. Here I am (below) at a Corporate Giving "expo" I set up to talk to employees, showcase our newly redesigned intranet pages, and encourage participation in the program.

• Branding: I ended my summer by building the case for branding. As a short summary, right now the corporate giving program at ABC is called "Corporate Giving". Without a name or a visual identity, the program doesn't stand out and get noticed by internal employees. Not to mention the fact that currently ABC does not really communicate at all with external stakeholders about how it gives back. All in all, calling it Corporate Giving is impersonal and doesn't convey any of the heart or meaning behind why ABC is involved in the community. My report included competitive benchmarking (looking at how Land o'Lakes, Del Monte Foods, and V8 Juice externally market their community programs), making the case for why philanthropy in business is a strategic imperative, and outlining how and why branding our program is good for ABC.

Beyond my own summer projects, I also learned a lot about ABC's business overall. I had the chance to meet with members of the senior leadership team, including the CEO, the COO and a Director of Manufacturing, as well as with various department heads from Quality, Customer Marketing, Consumer and Business Insights, and others. As a nonprofit "veteran", it was eye-opening to spend 10 weeks at a company with 2000+ employees and learn how all of the various functional groups work together to make ABC so successful.

I was also lucky to meet and work with a friendly, smart group of MBA and undergraduate interns. Here I am with a few  intern friends at a tour of one of ABC's plants:

 

As my time at ABC wound down, I started to reflect on what I'd done and learned over the summer. A few highlights:

1. Working in a for-profit setting is not all that different from a nonprofit: Sure, there is that one vital difference (ie: making money) - but besides that, I found that I acclimated pretty quickly. Interestingly, the part I found most "normal" (ie: similar to my nonprofit experiences) was the everyday, regular stuff: managing interpersonal dynamics with colleagues, finding enough time in the day to get everything done, and identifying ways to promote ideas and gain allies in the office. Ok, so ABC is for-profit. But beyond that, I felt right at home.
2. How you talk to your employees is just as important as how you talk to your consumers (if not more!): Ultimately everything ABC does (from R&D to Marketing to Operations and beyond) is focused on driving sales, which means that the company (and every company for that matter) can get caught up in focusing on how it talks to its consumers. This is an imperative for business - but it doesn't take precedence over the conversation a company has with its own employees. To have happy consumers and customers, we must have happy employees. Sometimes when we get so focused on the bottom line, we forget how important it is to engage internal audiences in a conversation about our company values, heritage, mission, and goals. But as I learned in corporate giving, employees are our greatest asset and ambassadors; without them, the business just can't succeed.
3. Change is sloooooooow: Change is such a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the idea of it gets our blood pumping and makes us feel energized and empowered; on the other, it can be overwhelming, unwanted, or feel like an unnecessary intrusion. Like any new employee, I came in to ABC this summer full of ideas, energy, and action, and I'm pleased to say I accomplished a lot. But any trouble I ran into this summer revolved around the idea that change - even good change - is slow moving. It takes time to get buy-in from the right people and package a message or idea in a way that your audience will understand - and even when you've done all of that, it's still a challenge to actually move the dial in the direction you want. I did a lot this summer, but I could have used way more than 10 weeks to really make an impact.

With just two weeks left until I begin my second year of my MBA, it's fun to look back on the summer and see what I accomplished. My experience at ABC really helped "round out" my understanding of how philanthropy (and CSR in general) can reinforce business goals and be a strategic advantage for companies that do it right. Now it's time to get back to school!

The Changebase Listed As a 3BLMedia Blog

I'm thrilled to announce that last week I was added to 3BL Media's  list of featured CSR and sustainability bloggers. I'm honored to be included in such a distinguished group of CSR professionals - including Mallen Baker, Fabian Pattberg, Joel Makower, and Sean Stannard-Stockton. It's also terrific to see that The Changebase is making a few waves early on. 3BL Media is a terrific resource for anyone interested in all-things CSR.

We are committed to the Triple Bottom Line: people, planet, profit. Our mission is to advance and promote Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Sustainability through effective communications. Using social media, blogs, and Web 3.0 interactivity, your commitment and dedication to the Triple Bottom Line has the potential to reach and influence millions of people.

I get their CSR Feed sent to me every week and it's a great collection of news, blogs, press releases, and reports from around the world. I highly recommend that you check out the site and subscribe to their feed!

Thanks, 3BL Media, for including me and The Changebase!

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!