Tagged: ethical work

SHIFT: Meeting Corporate Philanthropy Where It’s Headed- Key Behaviors in Successful Corporate Partnerships

Key behaviors of successful NPO / Corporate partnerships

Continuing our series on Corporate Philanthropy, we take a look at what the key behaviors are that we see in  nonprofits who have developed partnerships that provide a strong, reliable and renewable revenue  stream?

1. They all have a Personal Relationship with the company leaders: As a personal investment, the requirement that we build meaningful dialogue and a unified voice in our efforts to identify opportunities for partnering is essential.  A relationship with our company partners is not a mail campaign.  It’s not a sponsorship pitch.  It is the same level of personalized cultivation applied to our individual major donors.

Getting to a partnership is a process. The flow from first connection (usually a gift of some sort) through partnership generally follows this route:  Transaction —–> Relationship—–> Information——> Partnership.   The relationship traditionally begins with a transaction of some sort: a sponsorship, a membership, a donation, a grant. Capturing the interests of the corporation and appropriately acknowledging and stewarding their generosity, a relationship is developed, where information is shared that further delineates the opportunities and shared values/goals of the two parties, which leads to a partnership.

It’s essential that you get comfortable with building personal relationships for funding or partnerships with your corporate donors. It’s crazy to even have to say that, but many fundraisers we have worked with are intimidated or lack dedication to the relationship building process.  Having a personal relationship with your corporate donors is the most important thing you can do to succeed.

2. Value proposition: Your Value Proposition is a definition of the key benefits you provide to the corporation, as a potential partner. Your client base, your donor market, your organizations core values, where do you operate, what is your brand, who do you influence?  These are value positions used to negotiate what is needed- cash, people, advocacy. Your Value Proposition is not what you do. Let me say that again: VALUE PROPOSITION does NOT equal WHAT YOU DO!

As evidenced in some of the past video and case examples, Nike and others did not partner with the chosen NPO’s because of what they did. What they did was important. And the outcomes were essential to the decision. But the value proposition of those organizations was the quantitative factors they bring to the table: who do they reach? who gives to them? where are they located? what community do they serve? What does their organization represent to the community?

Taking a value inventory will be critical. You can do this internally amongst your staff in a brainstorming session, or you can hire a facilitator to help in the process. Either way, having a very solid knowledge of  your value proposition is essential to successfully identifying and selling your organization to the right corporation for the right partnership.

3. Trust:  This is huge.  We think we know about trust, but in this sense we mean total and complete transparency, clear communication, and fulfillment. Trust is built slowly over time, as a friend recently reminded me. Its not an all or nothing position and it is only bestowed upon you or anyone incrementally with some consideration and time. It is also impermanent, it can change with the tide. Your organization must provide the framework within which that trust can be built with the corporation.  It may mean sharing challenges that you normally would not be compelled or comfortable in sharing about your programs and funding. If it knocks you out of the competition for the companies attention, so be it; better to have it done now, than after you have spent considerable time, resources and energy in building up the relationship. Trust also requires promises to be fulfilled. If you said you would do something with the funding, well you better have at it and show the results.  Things do happen that not goals off course or missed, but the frequent and candid communication you are engaged in, while building trust with your corporate partner, will have taken that into account.

4. Commitment: You know what they say- In breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.  Your commitment to long term strategies requires your organization to have a vision and a strategic direction. Commitment is not chasing the money; it is building on and resourcing the programs and services essential to your success. Nonprofits who have successful corporate partnerships have mission strategies that are imbedded in their DNA, they are clear and concise and tactical. They are committed to the outcomes, no matter what.

Following these four foundational behaviors will position your organization to be prepared for a myriad of corporate funding partnerships that provide long lasting benefits and outcomes.

NEXT POST: Developing a plan for your own corporate partnership program.

SHIFT: Meeting Corporate Philanthropy Where It’s Headed- Corporate Goals in Philanthropy

What do Companies want from their Corporate Giving?

While a market presence and position is always a number one consideration for business, as they play out their social responsibility in the community, it isn’t necessarily the only factor behind their engagement. It’s important we are aware and respectful of all the driving interests, if we are to develop winning corporate partnerships.

Business benefits top the chart of priorities –

McKinsey & Company, a 75 year old management consulting firm which serves over 70% of the Fortune 500 companies listed today, surveyed 721 executives around the world—74 percent of them CEOs or other C-level executives, about corporate social responsibility. You can find the complete report here.

In their survey, McKinsey found that the vast majority of companies surveyed—nearly 90 percent—seek business benefits, such as customer acquisition and product distribution, from their philanthropy programs.

And some 80 percent of respondents say finding new business opportunities should have at least some role in determining which philanthropic programs to fund, compared with only 14 percent who say finding new business opportunities should have no weight.

So, marketing drives philanthropic partnerships… well, not so fast.

While marketing is an important driver, it should not be the sole driver or lead the development of a partnership between you and the corporation you are seeking to join forces with, as doing so may leave your reputation in question and will certainly not do anything to enhance business benefits for the company. Todays consumers are savvy, much more so than ever in history. For the marketing line to work in corporate/nonprofit partnerships, the relationship with the cause has to make Sense, it has to have Value and be Comprehensive and it has to have a Meaningful Outcome. The cures for cancer that exist which have spawned an ever growing trend of “Pink Washing”, is evidence of the many partnerships that just DON’T make sense  and result in outcomes that are anything but positive and customer building:

Remember “Bucketgate” May 2010? This drew much criticism and debate when it launched around Mothers Day.  Poor KFC, while they thought the pink would bring them notoriety, they didn’t expect the kind they received. And while any press may be good press, this just didn’t make sense, in any remote fashion. And the consumer saw right through it.  Sadly, Susan G Komens’ judgement and incentives were questioned as well.

If business benefits are a leading factor in a company’s drive to develop NPO partnerships through their giving, and pink buckets of chicken are the anti-concept, what does a philanthropic/socially responsible partnership look like?  Take a look at what might be a plausible and valuable brand and marketing position, from Nike.  The Nike Foundation created the ‘Girl Effect’ with critical financial and intellectual contributions by the NoVo Foundation and Nike Inc. and in collaboration with key partners such as the United Nations Foundation and the Coalition for Adolescent Girls. Here is their introductory video. What business benefits might they be seeking in support of this cause? What new business opportunities are they building? How does this make sense?

[wpvideo cZViTCMF]

Not to be a KFC basher (I’ve eaten my share of chicken), but do we see the difference? This program does not appear to have the ‘slap it on a bucket’ approach of KFC. This philanthropic/socially responsible partnership ensures that market is not the key driver, but an integrated aspect of the partnership Nike has developed.

Local Impact is a close second in priorities for driving decisions on philanthropy

Executives overall say their companies are much likelier to address a broad mix of local issues with their corporate philanthropy programs than to address the social and political issues that they expect will affect shareholder value the most. In addition, interviews conducted suggest that companies see addressing local community needs as an indirect way to highlight a company’s good intentions to groups such as board members, shareholders, and regulators.

Chase Community Giving is an excellent example of a corporate giving program that was developed to have local impact. And in an interesting twist, Chase has combined their local perspective with crowd-sourcing: allowing the community to choose the charities which Chase will support.  By having the community vote on their charity of choice. Chase is empowering their community to lead their philanthropy. What is interesting about this, is that it make a case for and support the concept of, nonprofit accountability. If your NPO is not relevant in your community, if your community does not know about, care about or support your work….if you’re not doing good work and reaching meaningful outcomes- then you’re not a contender for Chase philanthropy. Their vetting process for impact is knitted into their philanthropy program.

Employee Base needs is the third critical goal of companies in their philanthropic giving –

Respondents in McKinsey’s survey most often cite employees as the stakeholder group important to the way companies think about their roles in society and as the group companies most often address with corporate philanthropy programs.

Employee satisfaction, retention, recruitment, all are critical business factors to corporations. By aligning their philanthropy with their employee base interests, they develop efficiencies in both lines. Often a company will have employee driven efforts, special programs which only employees can access for philanthropic engagement, pooled funds from employee activities, volunteer efforts devoted to employee outreach to the community and more directed at the interests and activities of employee groups.

A Recap –

The goals most often cited by corporations in their corporate giving strategies— 1. business benefits: enhancing brand, market reach; 2. working locally; and 3. building employee capabilities, improving employee recruitment and retention, all must be factored into the developed program you are building with your prospective corporate partner. If your program offers all three, its the trifecta of a corporate partnerhsip.

Who are the innovators?

Lets take a look at two award winners from the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy’s Corporate Philanthropy Day 2010. As you watch this, try to capture as many of the goals and key outcomes we just discussed, in the programs these two innovators have developed.

[wpvideo xy2nWFI9]

[wpvideo SwLNS6bQ]

Pretty comprehensive right? And I can guarantee these were not created in a marketing office, but were organically developed between the company body and the nonprofit they had the closest relationship with.

SHIFT: Meeting Corporate Philanthropy Where It’s Headed- Corporate Social Responsibility

What is Corporate Social Responsibility?

And more importantly, why is it an important part of our conversation in discussing our relationship with corporate partners in philanthropy?

The reality is that Corporate Social Responsibility is an emerging field. It is a very broad and evolving area of development for corporations and not for profits alike, a new terrain for which maps are much needed, but often are imprecise.

It has a complexity that is only seen in the emergence of new ideas and systems , a nucleus of thoughts, practices and evidenced based studies that are lending to the defining structure that it is becoming, following along the lines of chaos theory.   To a corporation, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)  has a multitude of components, too many to review in this one small post.  Its concept and its practice is complex,  often disjointed and, currently, most often reactive.  Divergent views and information overload is nowhere more apparent than in the field of corporate social responsibility. Each company is different, each with its own challenges, corporate culture, unique set of stakeholders and management systems. Each with its own view and opinion and strategy.

But amid this swirling pool of CSR anti-matter, certain agreed upon norms and standards are being established. The World Business Council on Sustainable Development makes this statement on defining Corporate Social Responsibility:

Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large

And this from an MBA textbook on defining corporate social responsibility:

Corporate Social Responsibility  is the decision-making and implementation process that guides all company activities in the protection and promotion of international human rights, labor and environmental standards and compliance with legal requirements within its operations and in its relations to the societies and communities where it operates. (Lehigh University, College of Business and Economics)

Two very nearly similar definitions. We are getting close to a commonality of expected beliefs and outcomes, among everyone involved in defining CSR.

Despite its complexity most corporations practicing a CSR culture, administer and measure their CSR programs along these three areas:

External Business Practices: How the corporation does business.  Who they compete with, who they partner with, their supply chain, their products, their distribution lines  and the impact their business has on society.

Internal Business Practices: Their corporate governance, their corporate policies, investments, ethical balance structure and the impact their business has on their employees

Impact Partnerships:  How they respond to societal issues that specifically impact their business practices, both internal and external and who they partner with in doing so.

Secondly, most corporations will agree that the measurement of these are based on three bottom lines:  Financial bottom line outcomes, Environmental bottom line outcomes and Social bottom line outcomes. This is called the triple bottom line.

Defining 3BL

For our role, as nonprofits seeking to shift our approach in securing corporate funding, it is essential to know and understand the core concept, terms and definitions on CSR as outlined here. Our ability to engage in an educated dialogue about our partners corporate social responsibility is critical to our successfully defining a partnership that meets both our and their needs.

CSR HISTORY

Let me take you through a quick history on corporate social responsibility. Some may think it’s a new idea, a fad or a recent breakthrough in thinking. But it goes as far back as the late 1800’s. Evidence of corporate socially responsible practices among industrialized corporations can be found in some of our most familiar company names. For instance, take the Sears Roebuck Company, a company that was near bankruptcy when Julius Rosenwald, joined the company in 1895.

During his tenure as vice president, treasurer and then president, Rosenwald grew the company from a failing $750,000 a year corporation to over $50 million.  As part of his growth plan, Rosenwald invested a lot of Sears’ money into society, specifically agriculture. Rosenwald understood that the growth of Sears Roebuck was wholey dependent on the growth and wellbeing of the company’s customer- the American Farmer and its field hands. And so he invested in his company by investing in his customer, through their societal, educational and family needs.

Why Rosenwald did this was not ‘termed’ corporate social responsibility until 1953 with the publication of  the book ‘Social Responsibility of Businessmen’ by economist and college president Howard R. Bowen.

But still the term languished, without much fanfare for about a decade, until the phrase was reinvigorated in the 60’s and 70’s around the time when big international companies faced anti-corporate sentiments because of environmental and human rights issues. In fact, companies faced large scale boycotts of their goods and services to force change among corporate practices affecting society and the environment.

Through the 80’s discussion of the concept of CSR grew. During that time, most socially responsible behavior was positioned as a philanthropic activity based on a company’s fixed budget that was allocated to support nonprofit organizations – mostly doing so to “look good”. These funds were sometimes allocated to many organizations  with the idea that to satisfy as many interest groups and to gain as much visibility as possible was a beneficial goal. The commitment was usually short term and restricted to making donations that were heavily influenced by the wishes of the senior management of the organization, and mostly to bring about a marketing position through brand awareness at nonprofit events.

Then in 1989, Ben and Jerry’s distributed the first ever Social Responsibility Annual Report. People took notice, because it authentically calculated Ben and Jerry’s  business practices and policies that lead to meaningful outcomes for society and the environment and to bottom line financial benefits to the company and the communities it supported.

[wpvideo 09EZciew]

Academic exploration, corporate research and charitable interest in CSR began to escalate at a rapid rate. In 1992 the Earth Summit in Rio was a key moment in the evolution of CSR. At this Summit, it was reported that “the level of corporate involvement in the summit was unprecedented, unlike anything ever seen before, with a coalition of 48 companies coming together to establish a new coalition, the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD)”. This coalition placed the academic and financial exploration of  CSR culture on the map in a way now other group or company had been able to do before. The BCSD would later become the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) which continues to be an authority in CSR and have tremendous influence on the corporate social responsibility stage.

Since that time, corporate social responsibility as an essential and important business practice has moved from discussion in the cubicles of most corporations, to a presence in the board room and a position on the balance sheet of almost all company’s large and small.

SHIFT: Meeting Corporate Philanthropy Where It’s Headed- Influencers

THE INFLUENCE OF BUSINESS CRISIS ON CORPORATE GIVING

You may recall that BP nearly wiped out the Louisiana and Florida coasts last year following the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. Over the course of weeks over 200 million gallons of oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico. The disaster may have been one of the worse ecological assaults in history.



Ultimately, BP was assailed but not defeated by the oil spill. Their stocks plummeted, protests and boycotts ensued, heads of divisions lost their posts.  But BP weathered through, their stocks rebounded and their reputation is slowly and delicately on the mend.

In their favor was over 25 YEARS of brand management through Corporate Social Responsibility. At a Corporate Social Responsibility Conference at Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship in the early 2000’s, BP was a highlighted  speaker and won awards for their ecological philanthropy programs. We might laugh now, but that investment saved them from collapse.

The need to build emotional trust, a bank account of goodwill with society, is an important strategy in corporate governance and a significant influencer on a corporations philanthropic efforts. This bank of trust will allow the company who has been the cause of, or has exacerbated, a crisis, to make withdrawals and weather it through.

Bad business will happen, and that knowledge drives corporate giving.

SHIFT: Meeting Corporate Philanthropy Where It’s Headed- Influencers

THE INFLUENCE OF GOVERNANCE ON CORPORATE GIVING

In addition to the shifts and perspectives being discussed and implemented in the business academic world, we see advancement in environment surrounding business governance as well.

ISO 26000 was implemented September 14 2010. For those not familiar, The ISO –a network of the national standards institutes of some 160 countries that develops and coordinates standards of operations for business lines. The standards govern management of Quality, Risk Environmental and now Social Responsibility. Simply put, these standards are applied to a company’s business practices, who actively engage in pursuing compliance. When they do so, they are awarded an ISO brand of approval for achieving and maintaining these standards. These are highly coveted and companies who achieve them make them visible.

In the words of the ISO itself “The world demands social responsibility. ISO 26000, the first internationally approved standard to provide guidance on social responsibility, is a global response to this global challenge.”

The ISO 26000 is intended to outline for companies:

  • concepts, terms and definitions related to social responsibility;
  • the background, trends and characteristics of social responsibility;
  • principles and practices relating to social responsibility;
  • the core subjects and issues of social responsibility;
  • integrating, implementing and promoting socially responsible behavior throughout the organization and, through its policies and practices, within its sphere of influence;
  • identifying and engaging with stakeholders; and
  • communicating commitments, performance and other information related to social responsibility.

This is the first time an organized set of standards has been produced and disseminated for companies to follow. Thought leaders believe this will be game changing for companies in strategizing and developing their social responsibility.

ISO 26000 is a response and a governance influence on corporations. IN part it may stem from the multitude of influencer’s outside the corporate circle. When JP Morgan Chase investors assemble to vote on a “Genocide Free” investing policy for the company, the pressure to conform and perform to standards is undeniable.  Loss of trust by the consumer, civil society activism and Institutional investor pressures, all bear significant influence on corporations today.

VIDEO: Highlights on ISO 26000 from inside sources            [wpvideo EWHGPEVM]

Ethical Bonus Structure for Fundraisers

Image: jscreationzs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

In a recent discussion on a group in LinkedIn, the topic of commissions for fundraisers was a hotly debated point of disagreement, and often fierce agreement, among posters.

After 50 posts, the group began to consider another question:  If not commission, then is there an ethical way to offer compensation as a bonus for work well done by fundraisers?

I posted my response, outlining my successful experience and ethical structure for providing bonus compensation to staff. The response for a copy of the outline was overwhelming and after responding to a few by email, I decided to post it to my website for free download (PDF). You can go there and if you have further questions, feel free to contact me.

A few more thoughts on bonus compensation, and then would love to hear your thoughts on this subject.

Bonuses work. It’s a studied fact. But they don’t work in isolation and should be combined with non-tangible compensation as well. People want to be acknowledged and validated for their value, in ways additional to monetary compensation.

Establishing and working toward bonus goals should never be done in a vacuum. The goals-

  • Must be drawn from an organizational strategic plan, and relate directly to how the employee can help the org reach their departmental goals.
  • Must include more than just financial goals, and ideally only reflects financial goal achievement of the TEAM.
  • Must be developed in a collaborative fashion between the employee and supervising staff.
  • Must be built on the capacity for the fundraiser and the organization to achieve the goals realistically (“Can we get there from here?” is always a number one consideration in building bonus goals.)
  • Must be a PART of an overall performance management assessment tool and not the only factor.
  • Must be tracked monthly. Its only fair that the fundraiser knows where he stands on a regular basis, so that he can improve his performance or making changes to his approach. No surprises.
  • Must be calculated with a balanced, but benevolent approach and must include supervisory staff as well as Executive Leadership in determining final calculations. For smaller NPO’s that may mean ED and a Board member.
  • Must leave room for discussion. Don’t deliver it in an email or paycheck envelope, please!
If managed correctly, with sensitivity, a fierce determination to goal achievement and ongoing support- it can only be an ethical approach.

Slow Money…Salvaged Soul

Go here

Slow Money

Amazing concept and yet so…..organic? familiar? basic?

Principles of the Slow Money Alliance include:

In order to enhance food safety and food security; promote cultural and ecological health and diversity; and, accelerate the transition from an economy based on extraction and consumption to an economy based on preservation and restoration, we do hereby affirm the following Principles:
I. We must bring money back down to earth.

II. There is such a thing as money that is too fast, companies that are too big, finance that is too complex. Therefore, we must slow our money down — not all of it, of course, but enough to matter.

III. The 20th Century was the era of Buy Low/Sell High and Wealth Now/Philanthropy Later—what one venture capitalist called “the largest legal accumulation of wealth in history.” The 21st Century will be the era of nurture capital, built around principles of carrying capacity, care of the commons, sense of place and non-violence.

IV. We must learn to invest as if food, farms and fertility mattered. We must connect investors to the places where they live, creating vital relationships and new sources of capital for small food enterprises.

V. Let us celebrate the new generation of entrepreneurs, consumers and investors who are showing the way from Making A Killing to Making a Living.

VI. Paul Newman said, “I just happen to think that in life we need to be a little like the farmer who puts back into the soil what he takes out.” Recognizing the wisdom of these words, let us begin rebuilding our economy from the ground up, asking:

* What would the world be like if we invested 50% of our assets within 50 miles of where we live?
* What if there were a new generation of companies that gave away 50% of their profits?
* What if there were 50% more organic matter in our soil 50 years from now?

Wow. Finally, a better way to measure our success as a society.


Report: Tour of Missouri needs fiscal policy guide – Kansas City Star

More stories hit the media on financial accountability and NPO’s. Is there an organization out there that can take this 600 pound gorilla on? A group needs to convene to research and make recommendations on what policies and oversight should and could be occurring to ensure donor rights and advocacy of respectful and honorable use of donated funds.

Report: Tour of Missouri needs fiscal policy guide – Kansas City Star

Shared via AddThis

Be Accountable

From the Hartford Courant, October 7th, 2009

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on Wednesday asked the governor for an accounting of funds from specialty state license plates, saying at least $500,000 has been illegally diverted to Connecticut’s General Fund to help balance the state’s troubled budget……Usurping donor intent after the state solicits and receives such contributions is forbidden by constitutional law, fairness and common sense, Blumenthal said.”

http://www.courant.com/news/local/statewire/hc-ap-ct-licenseplatefundsoct07,0,2140204.story

And so it goes. Not that this is new. Too often, as highlighted in my post of Sept 25th, the ones raising the money and the ones spending the money in an NPO, have mutually exclusive goals. This tension always exists, but appears to increase as the economy forces nonprofits to make some critical operating decisions. And when the decisions are driven by personal gain it becomes all the more egregious. Not that Rell has personal gain in this, but the lack of respect and the hubris in assumption of donated funds as a free checkbook is disturbing and all too common.

If you are on a Board of Trustees you need to become more empowered in your governance role. Ask questions and expect answers. And if it’s still not clear ask some more. Do not allow administration to appease you with arguments of their managerial control and administrative duties vs your role in governance. Ensuring the intent of donor funds is honored is governance.

If you are administering an NPO, check your intentions. If indeed decisions need to be made about donor funds, and the use of such funds that is not in compliance with donor intent, you still have recourse. Go back to the donor or donors and explain the need. Ask permission. Seek counsel from the AG’s office. And if you find you still cannot use the funds to solve the financial issue, then build a case for more donations to meet your need.

Yes its hard work, but thats our role.

Visionary Leadership

I’ve been asked to speak on visionary leadership.  I’m still deciding if I have anything cogent to say on this topic.

The term “visionary leader” is tossed out like so much corporate slang today. But is it an accurate representation of the sentiment hoped to be communicated?

The encyclopedia defines leadership as an individual’s capacity to motivate others to seek the same objective.  Well that’s a bit short sighted. Using this as a strict term, Hitler would be classified a leader.  As would Satan.  Not my perception of what the word leader should conjure up.

Lets try visionary. The dictionary defines visionary as one who is given to impractical or speculative ideas; a dreamer. Not much better.

What is being communicated when we speak of visionary leaders? Certainly not impractical dreamers, Svengali’s leading others to senseless ends.

Perhaps we can find a better term, based on our longed for attributes in leadership, those characteristics that are valuable and inherently humanistic.

Suggestions?

I’ll start us off:  West Point Academy writes that they build  “Honorable Leaders”.  The dictionary defines honorable  as adhering to ethical and moral principles. 

I like that.

Others?

Truth, purity, unselfishness – wherever these are present, there is no power below or above the sun to crush the possessor thereof. Equipped with these, one individual is able to face the whole universe in opposition.’ Swami Vivekananda