Fostering public goodwill

This past week, the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) released two interesting research studies on corporate citizenship (or CC), defined the PBSP-way, as "a business principle proposing that the long-term interests of business are best served when profitability and growth are accomplished alongside the development of communities, the protection and sustainability of the environment, and the improvement of the quality of life of the Filipino poor." Realizing that there is an increasing public expectation on the business sector to practice social responsibility, the PBSP commissioned the Social Weather Station (SWS) to profile the Filipino’s attitude, insights and opinions on corporate citizenship.

What do Pinoys think of CC? The recent poll conducted through face-to-face interviews using a national sample of 1,200 statistically representative voting age adults, coming predominantly (81 percent) from the D and E classes, revealed the following: Only 1 out of 10 Filipinos is aware of the term CC. Forty percent are aware of private corporations with projects for the country’s development. As expected, knowledge of CC is higher in the National Capital Region (NCR) and among those aged 18-24 years old regardless of gender. Conversely, 60 percent are not aware of corporations with social projects.

Duties And Obligations

San Miguel Corporation at 19 percent (representing 8 percent of total sample) was mentioned by most respondents as the most actively involved in social programs, followed by Jollibee, ABS-CBN and Meralco at 3 percent (1 percent of total sample) each. Other companies that generated 2 percent include Coca-Cola, Nestle, Purefoods, Unilever and Ayala Life.

When asked about their considerations in product purchase and service availment, quality (57 percent) ranked first, followed by price (32 percent), positive corporate reputation (7 percent), and recommendation of a trusted person (4 percent). Mindanao and class E (very poor) respondents gave equal consideration on quality and price, while other areas and classes including gender and age groups chose quality over price.

Pursued about the issue on "what private corporations could do," majority expect them to voluntarily increase wages of employees in step with the increase of prices of basic commodities (68 percent); spend for cleaning or for restoring any damages in the environment (58 percent); send volunteers to help in tree planting, construction of homes or teach courses to out-of-school youth (57 percent); and open our arms and give substantial donations to the poor communities in need (56 percent).

The consulted public composed mostly by the alienated and marginalized sectors of our society, views CC mainly as "duties" to help people, community, and the nation as a whole. On the other hand, private companies are generally perceived to have "obligations" to its employees, the environment, and communities they serve.

CC Is For The Stouthearted

This survey tells us that the stakeholders believe that CC can’t and shouldn’t be seen as just another fad or fashionable way to push a company. Generally, convincing the public of sincerity means companies who engage in CC must be stouthearted enough to make a long-term commitment, and take on a super cause, an issue of urgency and national dimensions. Consumers are getting smarter and smarter. They are getting more skeptical and they have a tremendous amount of choice. They are not just buying products and services now; they are also buying the company behind them.

As Manny Pangilinan, PBSP Chair, reminded in his wrap-up at the CSR Expo, "CC should be holistic and integrated. Good intentions are not enough. Short-term programs are not enough. Piece-meal dole-outs are not enough. The campaign for poverty must recognize the complexity and inter-connectedness of its causes, which must think not only of giving a man a fish, or simply teaching him how to fish, but also about whether he has a market for his catch, and if his fishing grounds are environmentally degraded."

Are We Doing Things Right?

More than 30 years ago, business leadership in the Philippines has redefined the boundaries of business relationship with society. The business community knew then that the only way to survive is to provide equal focus on building, not only social capital but, also to apportion some risk capital to put in place the needed social infrastructure and services. Significant shifts from the first wave of pure philanthropic activity to a much more evolved form of CC have been put in effect to address issues of social impact such as poverty, environment and conflict.

But as CEOs have become more involved in defining and pursuing the social mission of their companies, their questions have become tougher as well. The question is no longer "What’s in it for me?" but "How do we know we are doing things right?" or even "Show me the returns on my social investment." For community relations managers, corporate-giving officers and corporate foundation executives, there are no easy answers to these questions.

Against this backdrop, there is a clear need for a mechanism that will enable a company to measure its CC activities against a set of specific norms, as well as in relation to the CC performance of other companies. To meet this need, PBSP has implemented the Benchmarking Corporate Citizenship Program (BCCP) that can help develop and implement leading edge corporate social response involvements; develop a management systems framework that will help managers design effective and efficient CC programs; develop a self-assessment tool that can measure both the effectiveness of areas of strengths and weaknesses of their internal systems, and the impact of their programs to the company’s triple bottom line.

The BCCP talked to a total of 49 companies, 82 percent of which are from Luzon and Metro Manila, while 18 percent were from Mindanao and Visayas. By industry sector, 31 percent were in manufacturing, 18 percent from financing, and the rest were distributed among all other sectors. Pedro Roxas, co-chair of PBSP’s Center for Corporate Citizenship reported in the CSR Week Expo that "the limitation of the survey lies on the fact that the benchmarking tools used were designed to allow managers to do a self-assessment mechanism for continuous improvement. The results were therefore based on the subjective, personal, and experiential evaluation of the respondents who accomplished the tool."

Measuring The Elements

For the study, two self-assessment tools were developed and used – the CC Benchmarking System and Process Assessment Tool and the CC Impact Measurement and Assessment Tool, both of which were used in generating the data. Five elements of the respondent companies’ CC practice were measured – leadership, policy, program development, systems installations, and measurement and reporting. Here are the results, which provide a roadmap to a better, more rewarding CC program implementation.

Leadership. This particular element gathered the highest rating. A positive view indeed, as leadership commands the biggest influence in the company’s internal and external value systems. But still other respondents wished their CEOs, and Corporate Officers would take a more active role in leading and championing the social and environmental agenda of the company.

Policy-setting. Most companies have clearly defined their CC policies but many acknowledged the need for improvement in communicating and sharing information with the employees, communities and other stakeholders.

Development and implementation of CC programs. Nearly all companies saw the importance of a well-placed program design and strategies to ensure viability and sustainability. However, about half admitted there is a need to strengthen CC practices, by establishing a system for continuous education and capability building for the staff. Most importantly, managers acknowledged the need to align social goals with the business objectives to ensure program sustainability.

System installation. Respondents identify employee participation as one of the key strategies that should be institutionalized within the system to effectively deliver and achieve the social agenda of the company.

Assessment and reporting. The study revealed that monitoring and evaluation is the least practiced CC element. Measuring accomplishment in terms of the Key Result Area (KRA) is the most common approach used by companies, while measuring the impact of CC programs on the company and community remained a rarity.

Where Do We Go From Here?

With these findings what are the challenges and opportunities for CC? "Walk the talk and communicate, define the issue, innovate systems, provide concrete results and continuously improve on the benchmarking tool," Roxas emphasized. We have been provided an initial roadmap that will allow us to engage in the whole process of not only producing goods and services but also fulfilling the one true value of business – to foster public good.

As Pangilinan stressed, "CC is about two things. It is about purpose, and about structures that bring this purpose alive." In the moral realm, he continued, "It’s about a fundamental concern for the common good. In the economic realm, it’s about having the common good transcend narrow self-interest. It’s about broadening corporate purpose – from serving shareholders to serving stakeholders. It’s not about separating good corporations from bad, but about shaping the forces that act on all corporations."

Corporate Citizenship allows us the opportunity to truly safeguard the common good not only for today, but also for the future. Companies should heed the call for more vital, vibrant, and vigorous socially responsible involvements.

E-mail bongo@vasia.com or bongo@campaignsandgrey.net for feedback.