Category Archives: CSR

Good & Gasp #4 – Scaling Social Enterprises, iPhone Guilt, Ethical Rankings, Philanthropy Limits

Good & Gasp #4

Scaling Social Enterprises, iPhone Guilt, Ethical Rankings, Philanthropy Time Limits

Themes that caught my attention, interest or made my eyes roll while roaming the web world of doing good:

  • Scaling Social Enterprises – how can social enterprises scale post seed-investment stage?
  • iPhone Guilt – is Apple or its loyal consumers (you) to be blamed for the Foxconn debacle?
  • Philanthropy Limits – should foundations consider spending their money quicker and winding down (dying) earlier?
  • Ethical Rankings – if weapons companies make the list of most ethical firms, what exactly do we mean by “ethical”?

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Good Profile – Stacy McCoy (Give To Get Jobs)

Good Profiles feature members of our Good Generation who are either out there in the field doing interesting work or still in the trenches of schools and institutions waiting to make their mark on the world. Have your own story to tell? Know someone who would be great to be profiled? Please sign-up or leave a note here!

***

What do you do for a living nowadays?

Currently, I am the co-founder of Give To Get Jobs. Give To Get Jobs is a for-profit social enterprise job board for jobs that use a sustainable business model to address a social and/or environmental mission, mainly social enterprise and CSR. As a social enterprise ourselves, we donate a portion of the proceeds to fund job creation programs.

As one of the co-founders, I manage a lot of the day-to-day operations and get involved with developing long-term strategy. You can find me updating social media channels, managing the blog, building partnerships, reaching out to social enterprises, publishing job posts, you name it!

Is “doing good” a key reason why you chose this job?

Yes. The reason why I launched a social enterprise is because of the opportunity to do good. I view “doing good” as having a positive impact on the world. It is actively pursuing something benefiting instead of harming society.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The Lorax Test: How to Judge Multi-Partner CSR Effectiveness?

How many of you (non-Americans) know of Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax,” the loveable, furry orange, ultimate tree-hugging champion?

How many of you went to see the new movie in the past few weeks?

Then surely, some of you must have heard about the somewhat odd controversy surrounding this movie’s marketing campaigns by various corporate sponsors. It’s funny to begin with of course, that a movie character defined by his resistance to corporations’ greed and their historical disregard for the environment’s health, should be endorsed by a long list of corporations at the same time! Smells like greenwashing?

Not so fast. Experienced sustainability pundits like Marc Gunther have noted appropriately in articles about the issue that the judgment of a “sell-out” can seldom be made in a black and white manner. More precisely, given that we had a big set of corporations sponsoring this movie, some with better CSR/sustainability records than others, the question seems if it is possible to call the Lorax a sell-out or an earnest effort at corporate responsibility in general. Also, how can we test the effectiveness of so many companies involved in such a veritable “CSR smorgsabord”?

I guess you could call this the “Lorax Test.” What does it measure, you ask?

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Good Archives #1 – Law vs. Justice, Respecting the Poor, Sustainable Entrepreneurship, Do Good Career Choices

If it’s true that the blogosphere is really skin-deep and that we tend to stay only on the first page of any blog, then perhaps there is some value in the ancient respected work of excavation and restoration.

To that end, I thought it might be useful to periodically dig up some previous posts and put them on a little list. Since most of the themes and questions on GG tend to be not time-dependent anyway, no dusting required! Also, some recently joined folks may find interest in them but would never in a million years bother to click through the history of this blog.

Topics in Archive #1:

  • Justice – Law vs. Justice in the Occupy Wall Street Movement
  • Poverty – Pity vs. Compassion when thinking about “The Poor”
  • Sustainability – The Right to Entrepreneurship vs. Sustainability
  • Careers – An Approach for Choosing a Do-Good Job
  • Reflections – Defining our Personal Boundaries for “Doing Good”

*****************************

On Justice

Law does not mean Justice (d’oh!) – Occupy Wall Street’s Core Challenge

  • What is the viability of the Occupy Wall Street Movement? In today’s society, is it possible to ask for justice (right or wrong) in a system where legality (rules and laws) is the official decision-making factor of a country’s rulers?

On Poverty

Respecting the Poor – What You Should and Should Not Expect from “Doing Good” Unto Others

  • How should we think about “The Poor”? What is the importance of periodically re-humanizing those we call “poor” people and what is the critical difference between “pity” and “compassion”? What’s at stake if we keep referring to those we seek to help as “the poor” without thinking about what that actually means to them (and what it would mean to us if we were in their shoes)?

On Sustainability

The Dilemma of Sustainability – Should Entrepreneurship be our Natural Right?

  • If we are serious about sustainability, should we start managing or impose stricter standards on the way every day in the world new companies get started that just add to the burden of resource depletion and emissions? Should the right to economic self-actualization overrule the need for environmental stewardship? How should we manage this unbridled activity especially in developing markets where people tend to be less educated or interested in sustainability?

On Careers

4 Steps to Choosing a “Good Career” (Part 1) – Scaling of Impact

  • How should we think about choosing careers in the so-called “do-good” jobs of social entrepreneurship, NGOs, philanthropy, impact investing, etc.? How can we make the decision as individually relevant as possible to our own desires and varying needs for ambitious results? Should we care more about how much impact we are having or how we feel about what we do?

On Reflections

Weekly Ponder #1 – Defining our Do-Good Boundaries: Will my Effort ever be Enough?

  • How can we define how much we should get engaged in the business of doing good or changing the world? Should we volunteer, work part time, work full time for our cause? How much of our effort is “enough” to achieve those goals? How much is “enough” for our personal satisfaction? What does this depend on?
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Tale of Sheep and Monks – Why Even “Sustainable” Capitalism is Not The Answer

Key Question in this Post:

  • Is a revolution in capitalism the key to saving us from doom?
  • Are sustainable companies the key to saving us?
  • Will “zero / negative economic growth” be the answer?

I guess it started as a thought only in Weekly Ponder #4 when I considered one emerging school of thought in sustainability that argues whether the model of perpetual economic growth is (1) viable or (2) even desirable. The assumption was that resource depletion for some time now has already reached a point where it exceeds the rate by which we can restore those resources. Underlying this was an idea that questioned whether we may even need to consider zero to negative economic growth in developed countries to slow that rate of resource depletion – while still not losing that much in the quality of life.

Perhaps because part of me feels the idea of non-growth is semi-reasonable just at the same time that it’s also crazy and heretical, I’ve been wondering how much we are really achieving with the prevailing mode of sustainability of today. As I come across hundreds of blogs, tweets and Facebook comments every week on the web, I feel increasingly uneasy and -for a long time already – quite unsatisfied with the headlines about this or that corporate CSR/sustainability achievement here and there. As some of you may remember my past skepticism about sustainability as we know it, I’ve always considered the majority of corporate sustainability efforts, while well meaning, not much more than “doing less bad” than actually doing real good. Combine this with the last ponder about growth and I am encouraged in my doubt, which I restate commonly as follows: there is simply no way we can have our cake and eat it.

In  other words, I fear we can’t keep capitalism – even the sustainability-prone type – the way it is. Not if we care about esoteric, hippy stuff like survival, that is. But what I will argue today – and indeed what I fear far more – is this: even “super-duper sustainable, radically modified, shared/blended/mixed/hybrid value” capitalism won’t do it for us… not by a long shot.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Good Profile – Robert Albright (FSG Social Impact Consultants)

Good Profiles feature members of our Good Generation who are either out there in the field doing interesting work or still in the trenches of schools and institutions waiting to make their mark on the world. Have your own story to tell? Know someone who would be great to be profiled? Please sign-up or leave a note here!

***

What do you do for a living nowadays?

I work as a consultant in Boston for FSG, a nonprofit strategy, research, and evaluation consulting firm. I’ve been with FSG since 2009. During my time at FSG, I’ve worked on a range of projects with corporations, nonprofits, foundations, school systems, and other public sector entities. FSG started out as Foundation Strategy Group more than 10 years ago, based on the concept of bringing more strategic thinking into the social sector (particularly the philanthropic sector). Over time FSG has broadened its scope to work with cross-sector players in addressing complex social problems in education, global health, and global development. Most of my work has focused on FSG’s U.S.-based clients, primarily in education and economic development.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

The Meaning of CSR and Sustainability Jobs – Are they really “do good” careers?

Key Questions in this Post:

  • Why do people seek”sustainability” or “corporate responsibility” jobs?
  • Should “sustainability” jobs be actually part of “do good” careers, or rather “do not as much bad”?
  • What does it really mean to work in a “sustainable” job vs. a “normal” job? What is the value in this difference?

Today, let me speak especially to the aspiring or graduated MBAs and undergraduate business/economics students among you. Let me be blunt. First, I can indeed see why gray-haired corporate executives, looking back on long, illustrious, successful and profitable careers in what used to be “traditional” companies, find an appeal in preaching for sustainability and corporate social responsibility today. Yes, I can follow the “whole triple bottom line, it’s good for all, it’s good for us, it’s strategic growth engines, we ALSO have an obligation to invest in our communities” types of rationale.

Fine, so maybe they DO feel genuinely guilty about their firms’ past footprint on the environment. Or maybe they have always been environmentalists and community lovers at heart. Or maybe they just want to keep up with their executive peers/Joneses at the local country club. Kidding aside, my point is I get why they do this (good and bad reasons all in all) and why they try so hard to make sure everyone else hears about it, too.

But, I ask, what about young professionals nowadays? Why are many of you so enthusiastic about embracing CSR and sustainability as careers? What is it that you seek to accomplish that is better, more noble, than your peers pursuing “traditional” jobs?

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

How much CSR is there in BoP? – Junk food for the poor under fire

Reference:

“Peddling Poor Products to the Poor: What’s Our Responsibility?” (Grant Tudor) – published on Next Billion on December 9, 2011

Key Ideas:

  • For years, it has been a priority for large consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies like Nestle, Unilever, etc. to create and distribute special products designed for the “Bottom of the Pyramid” (BoP), or very poor population in emerging markets. In fact, this BoP market has been hailed to be a beautiful opportunity that would allow firms to innovate through packaging, distribution and product features, create revenue growth, and meanwhile meet the needs of the poor through access to more and better goods.
  • However, the sharp rise in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in recent years appears to be a consequence of what some could consider irresponsible marketing, coupled with product offerings that are not just low in nutritional value but can cause serious health problems if not consumed in measured amounts. Take for example Nestle: its Milo brand chocolate cereals packs 34g of sugar per serving. Coupled with how widespread Nestle brands are in emerging markets like Africa (anywhere up to 80%), this makes them in the eye of some critics likely culprits for the rise in NCDs.
  • Thus, what is the responsibility of multinational companies, such as CPG giants like Nestle, towards ensuring that their products sold to the BoP in emerging markets promote more benefit than they do harm?

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,