Tag Archives: for-profit

Disrupting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

logoCorporate social responsibility (CSR) means financial donations by for-profit businesses, as well as in-kind donations, employee volunteering or taking on community roles as a representative of a company, such as serving on an advisory board at a nonprofit or government group. CSR also includes commitments and demonstrated action regarding responsible or sustainable environmental practices, pay equality, safe working environments, etc., beyond what is required by law.

Nonprofits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), charities, schools and other mission-based organizations have wanted to say some things quite frankly to corporations and foundations, but they have been afraid to, for fear of losing their funding.

These organizations are tired of being mocked by the corporate world for not being innovative while also being denied overhead funding necessary to be able to experiment and explore innovation. They are tired of hackathons developing apps that their clients will never use because stakeholders were never consulted. They are tired of being expected to attend roundtable discussions and conferences to talk about serious social issues but not having their time paid for regarding these consultations to give corporations and foundations “insight.” They are tired of having  “executives on loan” from a high-tech company for six months who are more burdens than help.

I’ve even had public school teachers tell me how much they want to tell the big high tech company in their city “no” to its offer to “help” because the company’s ideas are more about good photo opps for the company than actually supporting learning goals – in fact, the company’s ideas take away from essential classroom learning time.

These folks feel they can’t make their complaints known about the attitudes of the for-profit world, so they tell me, in low voices over coffee. They are stressed out – they want a good relationship with the for-profit world, they want volunteers from corporations, but they want to be listened to, they want partnerships to be equal, and they want t

As an independent consultant, I have more freedom to speak than these colleagues. There are things I’ve always wanted to say to the for-profit world about how they approach financial donations, in-kind donations, employee volunteering and other corporate social responsibility (CSR). So I decided it was time to finally say them: I’ve launched a new section on my web site that targets corporations, whether large or small, regarding Corporate Social Responsibility.

My advice is meant to be provocative. It’s meant to be disruptive. Because I believe that CSR is long overdue for some serious disruption.

In my opinion, most CSR-related resources are more concerned with feel-good publicity and have an attitude that mission-based organizations are run by amateurs who chose their professions because they couldn’t make it in the “real” world. There’s a disturbing belief that businesses know better than nonprofits and should, therefore, use their financial gifts to push nonprofits, even public schools, into the directions businesses feel are best.

A lot of people, including several high-profit politicians and the US Supreme Court, believe corporations are “people.” Okay, if that’s the case, then every business, whether a tech-savvy startup, a small storefront or a large corporation, is a citizen of a community: that company’s employees and customers live and work somewhere, and how the employees do their work, how they travel to and for work, and how that work is produced or services are provided impacts neighborhoods, people, cultures and the environment, positively and negatively. No business, no corporation, not even a consultant working at home, is an island that has no impact on other places or people, near or far.

That impact comes with responsibilities, costs and consequences – financial costs, environmental costs and cultural impacts. Maybe farmland becomes industrial lands and housing, small towns become bedroom communities, the land where a popular bowling alley stands becomes so valuable that the prosperous business owners sell and retire – and the community loses a beloved gathering place.

Many of the financial costs that communities, neighborhoods and individuals have to shoulder that result from corporate/business prosperity are not covered by taxes – especially in this day and age of massive tax breaks for corporations and other for-profit companies. Many people are struggling to address those additional costs without any additional funding, while corporations and other businesses experience record profits and larger-than-ever tax breaks.

It’s from that reality that my web pages of advice regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR) have been developed. Expect to be challenged, because my advice is quite different from most, and maybe all, of the other advice you may have been reading or hearing.

Also see:

Are You a Member of the Cyber Sweatshop?

One of the most contentious discussions ever on OzVPM, an online discussion group for volunteer managers in Australia and New Zealand, was whether or not it was appropriate for people to volunteer for for-profit companies. The discussion started with a question on April 7, 2010, and it exploded with 221 messages for the month, on a group that averages about 35 messages in a month. Boundaries were pushed. Tempers flared. Teeth were gnashed. No conclusion was every reached.

Of course I was in the middle of it all. I said that, indeed, volunteers already DO contribute to for-profit organizations. I talked about volunteers in for-profit hospitals and for-profit hospices. I talked about volunteers at a recent Triumph motorcycle event I had attended. I talked about how these companies didn’t involve volunteers to save money; they involved volunteers because volunteers were the best people for the jobs. I also brought up that at least 90% of the content on Facebook was generated for free by users, meaning that we were all volunteering online for a for-profit company.

A year after I was bringing this up in workshops and online, The New York Times has thought of it as well, publishing a commentary, At Media Companies, a Nation of Serfs, which laments:

the growing perception that content is a commodity, and one that can be had for the price of zero… Old-line media companies that are not only forced to compete with the currency and sexiness of social media, but also burdened by a cost structure for professionally produced content, are left at a profound disadvantage.

Journalists aren’t happy. “The technology of a lot of these sites is very seductive, and it lulls you into contributing,” said Anthony De Rosa, a product manager at Reuters, in the article. “We are being played for suckers to feed the beast, to create content that ends up creating value for others.”

This isn’t the first time this concern has been vented, and that a backlash has been built against an online media company by users providing its content — remember America Online? Several of its users sued over ownership of the content they had created for AOL, content they weren’t paid for. Note this from the Wired.com article Disgruntled users called it a Cyber Sweat Shop from a few years ago:

Call them volunteers, remote staff, or community leaders – they are the human face of AOL. They host chats, clean scatological posts off the message boards, and bust jerks for terms-of-service violations. Fourteen thousand volunteer CLs not only play hall monitor to AOL’s vaunted “community,” they are that community. Their hours? Flexible: Some work as few as four per week, others put in as many as 60… Six months ago seven former AOL community leaders asked the Department of Labor to investigate whether AOL owes them back wages.

A disgruntled AOL community leader started making noise about his unfair treatment as far back as 1995. Here we are, 16 years later, having a very similar conversation about the Internet. Is there another backlash coming?

Volunteers don’t necessarily save money, even online volunteers: Wikimedia’s content is created and managed primarily by volunteers, yet Wikimedia still needs to fundraise every year to cover the many costs that come with involving several thousand online volunteers. And look at the quality of Wikimedia content – if I can’t find a fact in an academic article or newspaper article, I won’t quote it in something I’m working on, and many people feel similarly; without professional editors, the information there cannot be fully trusted.

I certainly have my own limits regarding when I think it’s appropriate to ask someone to work for free, and when I think such goes too far. I am on numerous online discussion groups, and I freely share a lot of resources – and it takes several hours of my time to do so. I admit I’m not doing it just to be nice; I’m also hoping that it could lead to paid work. I’m happy to share my time for free only up to a point, however: at least once a week, I have to turn down at least one request asking me to review a business plan, offer advice on a web site, etc. – for free. Unfortunately, the utilities company, DirectTV, my car insurance company, grocery stores, gas stations, my Internet Service Provider, and others that charge me for products and services do not accept volunteer time helping nonprofit organizations or aspiring entrepreneurs as payment.

I used to freely provide answers on the community service section of YahooAnswers, where the same questions about volunteering, community service and fund raising events get asked over and over again. At first it was to learn more about teen perceptions about volunteering, but it dawned on me finally that I was adding tremendous value to this Yahoo service, without being paid for it. So I created a series of web pages on my own site to answer these frequently-asked questions, and started pointing questioners to these pages; if visitors click on the GoogleAds on the page, I get a few pennies. In less than a year, I’ve raised enough money to pay for my web site hosting and my domain name ownership. Without this financial incentive, I’m not sure I would continue answering questions on YahooAnswers.

I also have seen a different trend emerging: more and more sites that pay people for their time to contribute to projects, instead of asking them to volunteer it: CrowdSpring, Yahoo’s Associated Content service, Freelancer.com, Elance.com, Guru.com and similar sites pay people for the content they create. If the companies using these services could get the quality content they need for free, they would NOT be paying for it. Will other sites now getting their content for free, like YahooAnswers, eventually have to follow suit in order to get the quality content more and more users are demanding?

I’ll end with this: the hilarious Should I Work For Free chart that was brought to my attention during my presentation in Hungary last month.