Search

Editor's Note: This post originally appeared on Business Fights Poverty's Community blog.

By Zahid Torres-Rahman

There was a tangible excitement in the air last month as the international community gathered in New York to usher in the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – the ambitious new vision for ending poverty and protecting our planet.

Beyond the audacious scope of the goals, something else is happening that is perhaps even more significant: a disruption in the model for how they will be delivered. Rather than being the preserve of governments and the traditional development community, everyone is being invited to take responsibility for their success. The sheer scale of what is needed means that each one of us – whether in government, civil society or business – must play a role.

To be effective, we must each play to our strengths. For business, that means looking to our core business models, products and services and unleashing a new wave of innovation and creativity. As Peter Drucker has famously said: “Every single social and global issue of our day is a business opportunity in disguise.”

And here’s the exciting part – more and more businesses and entrepreneurs are turning their sights to helping solve some of the world's greatest challenges – whether that’s access to clean energy, affordable irrigation or financial services.

One sign that a revolution is coming is the rapid growth in the number of Certified B Corporations (also known as B Corps) – a new type of company that explicitly uses the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. Already close to 1,500 companies from 130 industries in over 40 countries have met the rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.

This week B Corp certification is being launched in the UK, and I’m very proud to say that Inspiris – the for-purpose company behind Business Fights Poverty – will be one of the founding B Corps. As a Certified B Corp, Inspiris joins the prestigious ranks of companies like Ben and Jerry’s, Patagonia and ClimateCare.

Social purpose has been at the heart of Inspiris ever since we set it up nearly 10 years ago. Over the years we have focused on building networks and partnerships at the interface of business and development – starting with Business Action for Africa, and more recently creating Business Fights Poverty as the focus for our efforts to strengthen the ecosystem for all those working to harness business for social impact.

The success of the SDGs will rely in very large part on bold, purpose-driven innovators around the world, whether within large companies or small start-ups, who will see the world’s remaining social challenges as the world’s biggest business opportunities, and take massive action to solve them.

At Inspiris, we ultimately want to help build a global movement of these individuals who are using business as a force for good. Becoming a Certified B Corp is a special moment for us in our own journey. Not only does it help us transparently communicate our social mission and core values, but it will help accelerate our own efforts to scale the creative revolution that is already underway.

Graphic credit: Inspiris
Zahid Torres-Rahman is founder of Business Fights Poverty and co-founder of Inspiris.

 

By Graham Sinclair

Just in time for Matt Damon's new blockbuster, "The Martian," this week NASA announced there's liquid water on Mars. But not a lot. In sustainable investment, US$6.2 trillion is a tsunami of money, but it's not enough. Today trillions of dollars are being managed with 'sustainability inside,' based on self-reported, unverified, voluntary disclosures by investors globally. For many in the investment industry, it's both inspiring and a little bewildering. The number keeps growing, but what’s in the number is not exactly clear.

Sustainable investment can be defined as “an approach to investment in any asset class where environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors are proactively integrated at any stage of the investment lifecycle” (@SinCoESG 2014). In the last decade of making the investment case for sustainability, the quality and quantity of ESG in investment practice has increased. How big? There’s a few ways to describe it.

In the USA alone, the industry trade group U.S. SIF Foundation research with Croatan Institute, Report on US Sustainable, Responsible and Impact Investing Trends 2014, counted “sustainable, responsible and impact (SRI)” investment at US$6.2 trillion in U.S.-domiciled assets at Dec. 31, 2013 by 480 institutional investors, 308 money managers and 880 community investment institutions, making up about 18 percent of US$36.8 trillion professionally managed assets tracked by Cerulli Associates, a data aggregator.

In early September 2015, over 1,000  investors and their advisors met in London for #PRIinPerson 2015. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) counts 286 asset owners (like pension funds, family offices, foundations and endowments) and 905 investment managers (from majors like Blackrock to boutiques like Futuregrowth) with US$59 trillion assets under management (AuM). At the PRI launch in 2006 at the NYSE the original cohort included $4 trillion AuM. An alternative view, using just the lens of carbon footprinting, US$95 trillion AuM by 822 investors in aggregate is signed on to CDP investor support letters.

Other measures of sustainability in investment may be gauged with alternative initiatives and market sizing: Bloomberg ESG reported customers using ESG data increased 76 percent in 2014. The number of portfolios and the size of assets being managed has increased.  But it is also fair to say some of this reported growth is market re-sizing attributable to improved measurement of the self-reporting market participants. Not every cent of every dollar reported to PRI or CDP or US SIF by money managers has sustainability inside. As Volkswagen so dramatically chose to remind us in #DieselGate, anything self-reported or self-regulated may be fraudulent. Let’s keep an asterisk at the end of these big numbers (US$6.2* trillion), to remind us of the self-reported, unverified, voluntary, mixed methods reporting. Greenwashing (false environmental claims like “green SUV” or “clean coal”) and bluewashing (ditto while wrapped within UN-type initiatives like the UN Global Compact) is real and happens.

In fact as ESG demand growth from individuals and institutions may encourage more firms to "put lipstick on the pig and get it out the door", inflating their sustainability credentials. It is a sober reminder we need in the week after the promises of the Sustainable Development Goals lightened up the news cycle, The Late Show and the UN Manhattan headquarters. Trillions of dollars are today invested in the sustainable investment theme. As the regular culling of PRI signatories attests, investment firms are not above signing up then failing to show up. The ESG strategies, technologies, intentions and impacts differ. Most are making best efforts, but others are faking it. Or “Doing a VWdiesel” (too soon?!). Trust but verify.

The trillion dollar numbers in sustainable investment are new, and impressive. But like filming celebrities at a movie launch instead of taking it all in, it was not always so. For the general investing public in the largest investment market, the first available collective investment scheme was the mutual fund Pax World Fund, launched in the U.S. on August 10, 1971 with $101,000 in assets. Today, while the big number is the market of self-reported ESG integration, a niche of investment portfolios put “sustainability” on their labels.

Increased demand and reduced costs of investment data has seen growth in branded sustainability investments, for example Pax Global Women Global Index Fund or RobecoSAM Water Fund. The increased product supply means financial planners and asset allocators needed third party guidance on funds, dodging the pain of their own detailed due diligence. In 2015 the investment portfolio monitoring firm Morningstar rolled out fund-level ESG ratings using data by Sustainalytics, one of the global majors in ESG ratings, headquartered in The Netherlands. Former UBS brand Julius Baer, now a standalone private bank, will be the first client to license the ESG scores for its own funds research. At the end of September, France announced it has rolled out a SRI label.

I have my doubts about how to interpret the sustainability footprint when a multitude of ESG factors is distilled into one rating: many issues in each company rolls up into many issues in a portfolio. Like all investment decisions, it wraps into one rating or score. The tyranny of decisions lies in simplification. Make no mistake, the appeal of the simplification is undeniable. But is the ESG of your portfolio like the color you’re left with when your toddler mixes all the colors of PlayDoh into one big ball? It is unclear how Morningstar will cover these internal dynamics and portfolio mechanics.

Sustainable investment is an evolving field, with innovations being added like social impact bonds (SIBs) since 2008 or labelled “green bonds” since 2007 (see TriplePundit, Sept. 29). Our experience shows that even the best investment firms, while having good key investment disciplines and departments, struggle to integrate ESG factors and develop sustainability factors where the culture and resources are misaligned.

The growth in sustainable investment is significant. But as Marketplace's Kai Rysdal would say, let's not cue up the "happy music". The growth in sustainable investment is substantive, yes, but it overstates matters to say this advanced form of investment is the “new normal”. In general, most investors or businesses or governments do not talk and act as if the low-carbon economy is inevitable, irreversible, and irresistible. For a useful recap, watch the 2 Degrees Investing Initiative carbon metrics day from May 2015 in Paris. The reality is that investors continue to invest as if 2 degrees Celsius will have no effect. In reality we should expect 6 degrees Celsius.

We have more information flowing, but are firms on track? CDP reported “[s]eventy-eight per cent of the largest 500 publicly listed companies now report their carbon emissions" in 2015. Investors are starting to make their portfolio companies count their externalities. But none of these are being mapped to the goal of zero emissions. Mark Carney, the Bank of England leader described how climate change can affect financial stability in a watershed speech at Lloyds of London on 29 September 2015. Bottom line: “A framework for firms to publish information about their climate change footprint, and how they manage their risks and prepare (or not) for a 2 degree world, could encourage a virtuous circle of analyst demand and greater use by investors in their decision making." How long until all investors (and all their portfolio companies) invest every cent toward a 2 degree horizon?

US$6.2 trillion is not enough -- especially if every one of TriplePundit’s loyal readers cannot in this moment be sure their money is investing as if the future matters. Sustainable investment needs your voice as a client. Have you asked your investment advisor where your money is invested, and what process is used to get there? Every cent needs to be invested on the 2C vector. "Send the right signals" was the consistent refrain in keynote speeches at the PRI event from both HRH Prince Charles (Princess Diana’s ex-husband) and the CEO of Pimco, one of the largest fixed income investment managers. Having investors back an initiative can have real results. From a small base, sustainable investment continues to grow. And grow. We need more.

Image credit: NASA

Graham Sinclair is Principal at SinCo LLC – Sustainable Investment Consulting LLC. Connect with him @ESGarchitect orLinkedIn.com/GrahamSinclair.

It is better known as the $33 billion company selling assemble-it-yourself furniture, but Ikea also runs a lucrative food business. Anyone in a major metropolitan area who has shopped at an Ikea has returned home with not only DIY shelving that was missing a bolt or screw, but also a jar of its lingonberry jam — along with that toothpaste tube of salmon spread that occupies a forgotten corner of the fridge. Although food comprises only 5 percent of Ikea’s sales annually, we are still talking about a copious amount of crispbread, pasta and seafood that the retailer sells throughout the 47 nations in which it conducts business.

And it is seafood where Ikea has made a move that should nudge other retailers to follow. The company recently announced that all of the 23 species of seafood sold in its stores now only come from sources certified by the Marine Stewardship Council or Aquaculture Stewardship Council. So, whether you are dining in the cobalt blue and canary yellow Ikea café or are taking home some frozen salmon fillets, Ikea is promising products that are not only more environmentally responsible, but are produced and packaged in decent working conditions as well.

Ikea claims this shift offers a change for what it says are its 600 million customers across the world. That impressive number may be a stretch — after all, many of its customers want to hurry out of an Ikea after spending a chaotic day mired within its showrooms. Nevertheless, Ikea’s new seafood policy could send a positive message to customers in emerging markets such as Turkey, Thailand and the Middle East Gulf States, where food certification of any sort is still a novelty.

This news follows other announcements that Ikea has made this year as it has striven to become a more sustainable operation. Ikea’s Billy bookcases are only surpassed in the number of fans by its Swedish meatballs (after all, the latter are often the only reason why some people even enter an Ikea), but now vegan meatballs are available at many of the chain's cafeterias. Organic coffee is also on the company’s menu. And when it comes to Ikea’s lucrative linens business, the company says it is working to mitigate its environmental impact through its partnership with the Better Cotton Initiative. Finally, the company has evolved on lighting. Once responsible for making CFLs more affordable and accepted by the public, Ikea has phased out those light bulbs and currently sells only LEDs.

With the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimating that 90 percent of the world’s fish stocks either fully- or over-exploited, retailers have a crucial role in educating customers that they need to do their part and make more responsible food choices. Ikea’s shift proves that being sustainable can also be profitable without compromising on quality, while enhancing its overall brand reputation.

Image credit: Ikea

By Chuck Cohn

The typical workplace no longer contains a sea of cubicles and conference rooms. Instead, workplace communication software, such as Slack and Basecamp, allows the modern workplace to be an airport, a coffee shop, a home office, or any other location with an Internet connection. From 2005 to 2012, the number of people who worked remotely rose by nearly 80 percent.

This doesn’t mean workplace productivity has decreased. In fact, it’s done nearly the opposite. The explosive growth of cloud software, productivity apps, and mobile devices enables team members to communicate with one another 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from almost anywhere in the world. With this increase in accessibility comes an increased responsibility for leaders to provide a supportive, nurturing, and challenging work environment.

Ultimately, leaders must find ways to provide a sense of autonomy and responsibility for their staff members while still guiding team operations. Paradoxically, the ability to properly strike this balance cannot rely solely on the tool we all frequently turn to for assistance: technology.

Technology alone can’t manage people

Technology has undoubtedly played a role in creating a more efficient workplace, but leading a team requires a human touch. There are several reasons technology must be used with care:

1. Typed conversations lack some depth. Management technologies often rely on the written word, but it can be subject to broad interpretation, which may cause communication issues. It’s impossible to read tone or body language through text alone, and without these indicators, individuals can easily misconstrue messages.

If your team is constantly traveling, try investing in a phone system like Grasshopper. While it might take longer to hold a phone conference than shoot a quick email, you won’t leave your words up for interpretation. Your inflections will be crystal-clear, and you can clear up confusion in real time.

2. Poor use of technology can waste time. We spend a lot of time with our noses in our inboxes. On average, executives spend 1.5 hours a day writing emails. Multiply this figure across an entire company, and you may be losing hundreds of hours in productivity.

Cut email time by using task management software. If you’re emailing reminders to your team all day, why not set up recurring tasks? Try software such as Flow, which allows you to create tasks that relay due dates, project details, and more. Nothing beats in-person communication, but task management apps are much better than emailing tasks all day.

3. Mentorship can’t only happen on-screen. Face-to-face mentorship is still a crucial component of workplace success. People who were tutored on a one-on-one basis performed two standard deviations higher than those taught in a traditional classroom setting. Similarly, managers who personalize their mentorship to each staff member will help the company more than if they just assign tasks through a professional development platform.

If someone you’re mentoring is in a different city or country, it might be worth meeting him or her in person. Plane tickets aren’t cheap, but the results from spending a little time together in person will be well worth the effort and money. As one of the most important things you do, mentorship shouldn’t be relegated to Skype or email alone.

4. Technology is only as good as the person piloting it. It’s absolutely essential that you expend the time and energy training your staff on how to use any new technology your business implements. If those on the front lines of your company are fumbling over technology in front of customers, you may lose out on sales.

Jill Mizrachy, a senior director at national consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, knew that both training and communication were key to the rollout of the company’s new cloud-based computer system. First, Mizrachy worked with a communications specialist to develop the right message for her staff, explaining exactly how the new system would ease their workload. Mizrachy also selected senior team members to lend a human touch and any necessary assistance while staff became comfortable with the new software.

Once the software went live, Mizrachy ensured the team had a host of training options, including live demonstrations, online tutorials, and an interactive social media tool. Each staff member could choose the option that worked best for his or her learning style. Mizrachy’s strategy worked because she incorporated a human touch at every milestone on the path to the final goal.

Above all, avoid implementing new technology for technology’s sake alone. The right apps, devices, and software should help you achieve your company’s mission and vision rather than complicate that pursuit. With the right technology in hand, you can ensure all your team members receive the tools and human interaction they need to succeed and help you grow your business.

Image credit: Pixabay

Chuck Cohn is the CEO and founder of Varsity Tutors, the leading curated marketplace for private tutors. The company also builds mobile learning apps, online tutoring environments, and other tutoring and test prep-focused technologies.

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has launched a new project in Africa as part of its global CSR programme.

In its ambition to reduce the environmental impact of its vehicles and operations, the motoring giant's global approach was launched in 2013 as part of its ‘Environmental Innovation’ strategy. The programme invests in education, technology, health, wellbeing and environmental projects which will positively impact 12 million people’s lives by 2020. 

Working with partners ClimateCare and Vestergaard, JLR is investing in a new smart water filtration technology project called LifeStraw that will provide over 300,000 pupils in 375 schools across Bungoma County with safe water. The project will run for the next five years, helping improve students’ health, education and employment prospects.

Teams of LifeStraw staff will visit the schools each term to see that they are used correctly and to carry out further education, as part of a robust monitoring process. During the launch week, a team of seven Jaguar Land Rover employees from the UK and South Africa participated in the distribution as part of the company's employee volunteering programme, visiting schools across the region to gain a deep insight into the LifeStraw safe water for schools programme.

Nigel Clarke, operations director of Jaguar Land Rover Sub-Saharan Africa said: “Africa is a key growth market for us. By supporting the provision of appropriate and effective water purifier technology we are creating opportunities for over 300,000 schoolchildren in western Kenya – giving them the opportunity for a better education and greater opportunity to learn and excel. By 2020, we will create opportunities for three million people in Africa, which will reaffirm our commitment to grow our global business sustainably and responsibly."

Adidas is kicking off a new research project to develop a new type of sporting goods that will never be thrown away.

Through Sport Infinity, a European Commission funded research project led by the German sports goods giant, designers and football fans will be able to constantly reimagine and recycle their dream products using an inexhaustible 3-D super-material, says Adidas.

The research project brings together a variety of industry and academic experts, and combines broken-down sports products with excess materials from other industries.

As a result, the football boots of the future could contain everything from carbon used in aircraft manufacturing to fibres of the boots that scored during the World Cup, maintains the company.

Indeed, every gram of sportswear, including the boots of Lionel Messi, will be broken down to be remoulded again in a waste-free, adhesive-free process that gives consumers more scope for personalisation than ever before.

Four-time FIFA Ballon d’Or winner Messi said: “I am proud that Adidas is working to make sure that all of their boots, including mine, are being made in a way that protects the environment. For me, this is the future of football.”

Adidas says that the new super-material will make every sports fan a product designer with a pair of boots being able to be restyled as often as the wearer wants without worrying about waste.

Gerd Manz, vice president technology innovation at Adidas, said: “This is a game-changing development for football fans. Over the next three years, Sport Infinity aims to end the days of throwing away football boots. Instead, every pair of boots is not just recycled but reimagined to the consumer’s most personal specifications.”

Glenn Bennett, executive board member global operations at the Adidas Group, added: “Sport Infinity is the next step in our commitment to innovation and sustainability.

“This project will close the sustainability loop, creating a high-performance product that can always be recycled.” 

Consortia-based partnerships between companies and NGOs are set to become more common, as organisations look for greater impact and reach, according to a report by C&E Advisory.

What’s stood out for Manny Amadi, ceo of C&E, the company behind the annual Barometer report – now in its sixth year - is how relationships between corporates and NGOs are impacting in more substantive ways. For example, collaborative partnerships are helping NGOs achieve their missions. “It’s gone beyond simple advocacy,” Amadi tells Ethical Performance.

A good example is the Boots and Macmillan partnership where prior to the partnership Macmillan was only reaching 1:3 of UK cancer sufferers. To get that much closer to 3:3, Macmillan is now on the British high street through Boots with 2,000 Boots pharmacists trained in cancer care.

NGOs are beginning to understand the true potential of partnerships and their impact, says Amadi: “They are beginning to wake up to what other assets a business can offer.”

The report reveals notable growth in the number of organisations whose partnerships portfolios fall within the £5m-£10m range (10% year on year). Corporates and NGOs continue to better understand the potential to deliver objectives in non-financial ways. Sixty percent of NGO respondents now realise the impact that partnerships can have by harnessing corporates’ competencies (up 12% on the 2014 figure). Seventy-one percent of business respondents are aware of ways in which their businesses may be more effective than through financial support alone.

Amadi believes that the message is getting through as a result of economic necessity where resources are tighter and NGOs are looking to use their resources more effectively. “Another driver is the fact that there are some pretty visible success stories out there (such as Oxfam and M&S),” he says.

Another major theme of this year’s results, emphasizes Amadi, is that more businesses – two thirds in fact – are valuing the partnerships for the NGO’s influence in helping to change its general business practices. They are seeing the material value of the relationship in helping the business’ sustainability goals. “The Oxfam/M&S relationship is another good example of this, in that not only has it helped M&S recycle over 20m garments (through its Schwopping initiative) - so you could see this as part of its waste management strategy - but it has also learned a lot on supply chain management from Oxfam through its work in emerging markets,” Amadi explains.

The third striking element of the Barometer 2015 is the growth in consortia-based partnerships such as collectively.org. This concerns multi-lateral relationships such as the Tesco, British Heart and Diabetes UK partnership. Amadi says they are growing because they have greater scale and greater reach. However, they present inherent challenges such as their complexity and they can be slow to build momentum.

“As the responsible business agenda matures, what’s clear is what makes collaborations work is that the company and the NGO are both focused and strategic,” says Amadi.

Almost two-thirds of all respondents are currently involved in multi-organisational corporate–NGO agreements, and the majority of respondents (77%) see consortia-based partnerships increasing in importance over the next three years.

When asked what factors were most likely to make consortia-based partnerships more important, more than 86% of all corporate respondents and 80% of NGOs point to ‘the greater combined scale and reach all partners can bring to address a common issue’.
Other highly rated factors included value and impact (cited by 78% of corporate and 57% of NGO respondents) along with specialist know-how and networks (stated by 69% of corporate and 61% of NGO respondents).

As part of the Barometer research, corporate and NGO practitioners were invited to vote for the partnerships and partners they most admire. Notably, a consortium-based partnership appeared in the top 3 for the first time: a new entrant on the corporate–NGO partnership scene, the Tesco/ Diabetes UK/ British Heart Foundation consortium.

This multi-lateral collaboration was launched in early 2015 and sees Tesco, Diabetes UK and the British Heart Foundation working together to help prevent Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

Jenna Hall, Programme Director at Tesco National Charity Partnership commented: “We are delighted to hear that the National Charity Partnership has been recognised as one of the top three most admired partnerships in the industry, especially as we only launched at the beginning of 2015. The partnership will see all three partners working together to deliver targeted prevention projects across the UK to help prevent Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, and aims to raise an ambitious £30 million.

“Diabetes UK and the British Heart Foundation are the leading charities for people with diabetes and cardiovascular disease, so by using our expertise and the reach and scale of Tesco, this collaboration gives us a unique chance to reach out to our target audiences through their touch points to highlight the importance of leading a healthy and active lifestyle.

“It’s great to see that so many well respected organisations have highlighted that our groundbreaking consortium model of working together to inspire change is a model they believe will be the future for corporate partnerships.”

The C&E Corporate–NGO Partnerships Barometer is available for download here.
 

As if it wasn’t hard enough convincing consumers to become greener drivers – stop that idling engine while you close the garage doors, slow down using your gears only fool! – the world and his wife have now been slapped in the face by one of the automobile industry’s greatest marques.

Unless you’ve been on a NASA mission lately, you can’t have failed to read about the Volkswagen emissions scandal. At the time of writing, it is turning into one of the biggest corporate scandals of my lifetime.

The German carmaker has recalled 482,000 VW and Audi brand cars in the US after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found models with Type EA 189 engines had been fitted with a device designed to reduce emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx) under testing conditions.

I am amazed at how this sneaky technology was ever approved. Why would anyone at one of the biggest car brands in world actually dream up this idea of a device to fool the existing controls in place in the US? That is some serious deviancy. And was this con swung with the knowledge and complicity of the directors or senior execs? That would compound the sin.

But do you know what the silver lining is to this sorry tale? It’s that the emissions story has been on the front pages of every single major newspaper across the world. It will have registered with people who may never, up until now, have engaged in the whole debate. 

Volkswagen’s rigging of emissions tests for 11m cars means they may be responsible for nearly 1m tonnes of air pollution every year, roughly the same as the UK’s combined emissions for all power stations, vehicles, industry and agriculture, a Guardian analysis suggests. The newspaper says those US vehicles would have spewed between 10,392 and 41,571 tonnes of toxic gas into the air each year, if they had covered the average annual US mileage. (If they had complied with EPA standards, they would have emitted just 1,039 tonnes of NOx each year in total.)

It may be information like this – the harmful effects of NOx which may bring about greater change in consumer attitudes.

Indeed, commenting on the VW emissions scandal Huw Irranca-Davies MP, chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, said: “In the light of the revelations over VW in the US, customers here in the UK and across the EU need and deserve urgent reassurance that they have not been deceived by VW or other automotive manufacturers.

“But this is not simply an issue of customers being deceived. Air pollution from dangerous emissions in diesel vehicles is linked to thousands of deaths in the UK each year. We need to know from our government that the reported vehicle emissions in the UK are accurate, that no deception similar to that in the US has taken place, and that our emissions-testing regime is rigorous and secure.”

The debacle may actually help in the battle to clean up the air in our city centres by introducing a network of low emission zones. The impact of poor air quality on health and mortality is already a scandal in the UK and in many of our major cities, and emissions from diesel vehicles are the prime culprit.

In recent years, as we’ve thought about social movements and the millennial generation, many have conjured up images of protesters, from the “Indignados” in Madrid to those who occupied Wall Street. What the millennials found was that protesting (for the most part) didn’t bring about lasting social change. So instead, they turned to making a difference by working with institutions, writes Noa Gafni, ceo of Impact Squared.

By working alongside institutions and individuals that already have a seat at the table, millennials been able to channel their energy in a constructive manner. This new type of movement- conscious movements- has adapted the enthusiasm and organizing principles of traditional social movements. Conscious movements funnel the energy of young people and the gravitas of established institutions to bring about positive social impact.

Businesses that engage with millennials in this unique way can maximise their social impact, create a pipeline of top talent into their organisation and improve the perception of their brand with an influential audience. Most important, however, is that organisations must integrate social impact in order to succeed.

Combining old and new power
Heimans and Timms described the rise of new power, which is "open, participatory and peer-driven" as a contrast to the old power of established institutions, which is "closed, inaccessible and leader-driven." The tension inherent in these two types of power makes them seem binary and incompatible.

Conscious movements are able to manage this tension in a way that brings about the best of both worlds. The Global Shapers Community, part of the World Economic Forum, turns this tension into an opportunity. One of the Global Shapers’ sponsors, Coca-Cola, facilitates interactions between new-power leaders and its executives during the World Economic Forum at Davos and throughout the year. Shapers take part in cross-mentorship schemes where they learn from Coca-Cola executives, and the executives, in turn, learn from the Global Shapers. And, Coca-Cola provides the resources to scale social impact initiatives launched by Shapers in their annual ‘Shaping A Better Future Grant Challenge’.

Connecting on and offline
Conscious movements recognise the importance of both online interactions and in-person meetings. In a world that emphasises online interactions over in-person gatherings, conscious movements flip this logic on its head.

Lean In, a conscious movement launched by Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer, encourages women to launch Lean In Circles- small, in-person gatherings where women discuss their professional challenges, seek advice and share resources. Lean In's website provides Circles with the tools they need to manage meetings, access expert videos (for professional development during meetings) and interact with other Circles nearby. Lean In uses technology to enable face-to-face connections that build trust. And they have partnered with corporations, from Amazon to Blackrock, to create Lean In circles as part of their diversity programming.

Bridging Global and Local
Although the world is more global than ever before, most of our contact continues to take place locally. Of all the telephone calling minutes in the world last year, only 2% were cross-border calls. The average person consumes just 1-2% of their news on foreign sites. And at the same time, cities are becoming a more powerful force. Over half of the world's population lives in urban areas currently, which projected to increase to 66% by 2050.

Conscious movements make the most of both the global and the local. +SocialGood unites a global community of changemakers around the power of innovation and technology to make the world a better place. Working with a number of corporate partners, including Amway and Caterpillar, the community empowers globally connected influencers to share ideas, create experiences and adapt content to resonate with local communities.

Conscious movements provide institutions with an opportunity to engage young people around "moonshot ideas" that drive lasting social change. They are not appropriate for all organisations and all social challenges. But, with a thorough plan, corporations can create conscious movements that engage millennials in a meaningful way to create a lasting impact.
 

As more and more corporates team up with environmental and social campaign groups to help drive improvements in sustainability performance, what impact is the changing landscape of partnerships having on the effectiveness of NGO campaigning and bringing companies to book for poor performance? Tom Idle reports

It’s no time to be working for a non-governmental organisation (NGO) in central Asia. Described as “battering rams” by government officials, China is considering new laws to restrict just what independent organisations can get away with, recently detaining five women for more than a month for campaigning against sexual harassment.

In Cambodia, the state says it must handcuff any NGO workers that cause political trouble. A new law in Indonesia has set tight restrictions on NGOs to deter them from “disrupting the stability and integrity” of the country. And only three months ago, officials in Pakistan shut down the local Save the Children offices, accusing its aid workers of being spies.

While NGO-aversion is widespread in the East, the same can’t be said for what’s happening here in the West, particularly within the business community. Possessing levels of trust that most companies could only dream of, more and more organisations are keen to cosy-up to NGOs, rather than tread in fear of them, in a bid to leverage some of their charm. According to the latest Corporate-NGO Partnerships Barometer, enhancing brand and improving credibility remain the primary motives for companies wanting to get into bed with NGOs. While, for most NGOs (98%), getting access to significant cash resources remains the number one reason to partner with a corporate.

Of course, NGOs have long played a key role in pushing the sustainable development agenda at an international level, with campaign groups acting as key cogs in the wheels of inter-governmental negotiations. Whether it is bringing into force a ban on CFCs or the elimination of slavery – NGOs have been a driving force in bringing about positive environmental and social change in the world.
But facing a retreat by many governments favouring an anti-regulation agenda, NGOs have slowly but surely targeted powerful corporations, some of which dwarf entire nations in terms of their buying power, influence and resources.

Yet, they continue to bring companies to book for poor performance. Only recently, Forest Heroes got creative to force palm oil producer Astra Agro Lestari to take action on forest clearances across Indonesia. The business, the parent company of luxury hotel chain Mandarin Oriental, was targeted by a series of mocking video ads. Playing on the hotel company’s ‘She’s a fan’ slogan and TV spots, regularly backed by celebrities like Kevin Spacey, it created the slogan ‘She’s not a fan’ and splashed images of endangered Sumatran elephants all over the ads – one of the popular animals it claims are being threatened by the loss of habitat associated with Astra Agro Lestari’s expansion of palm oil plantations. The campaign also featured video footage captured by drones revealing some of the evidence that Forest Heroes claims supports its assessment that Astra Agro has cleared some 14,000 hectares of forest since 2007 and cleared 27,000 hectares of peatland in Indonesia.

Meanwhile, the corporate-NGO partnerships we know and love – such as the Sky-WWF team which gave birth to the Sky Rainforest Rescue initiative, or the Marks & Spencer-Oxfam partnership which has popularised ‘Shwopping’ – continue to create mutual value for both parties.

But a new type of relationship has also been emerging – one which sees the traditional protagonists get a lot closer to the so-called ‘enemy’. This new form of partnership, sometimes involving a consortia of players, is a sign that the responsible business agenda is maturing, according to Manny Amadi, chief executive of C&E Advisory, which runs the Corporate-NGO Partnerships Barometer. As companies and NGOs work together to tackle an array of common sustainability challenges, from tackling climate change, to addressing health issues such as obesity, “both parties are recognising the greater reach, impact and value provided by this model of partnering,” he says.

It is in dealing with supply chain issues that these new relationships seem to be gaining most traction. Despite best intentions, big companies with long, complex and wieldy supply bases are failing to trace raw materials and commodities effectively, and have little knowledge whether their products and services are fuelling modern day slavery or deforestation, for example. With a lack of oversight, or presence on the ground, they have realised that NGOs can unlock some of the complexities involved in working with dispersed suppliers, particularly in the developing world.

In early 2013, Greenpeace announced that it would suspend active campaigning against the world’s third largest paper and packaging business Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), after three years of continuous protest against the business for blindly chopping down trees across Indonesia, home to endangered tigers and orang-utans.

In a clear response to the aggressive Greenpeace campaign – which saw it target high-profile APP customers, such as the toy company Mattel and the fast-food chain KFC, urging them to stop buying products packaged in APP’s materials – the paper business released a new Forest Conservation Policy (FCP). It promised an immediate moratorium on any further forest clearance by all of its Indonesian suppliers, as well as a pledge that independent assessments would be conducted to establish areas for protection. It was a big success for Greenpeace and APP’s move was described by environmentalist Tory MP and wannabe London Mayor successor Zac Goldsmith as the “most dramatic turnaround of any global green villain ever seen”.

And it also kick-started a willingness from APP to be more open and transparent about both the challenges it faces and how well it is overcoming them. Now in constructive dialogue with Greenpeace, rather than cowering under attack, the business invited another NGO, the Rainforest Alliance (RA), to independently assess how well it was meeting its new FCP one year on.

Earlier this year, the RA reported its findings, which while not entirely glowing (the company was found to still be failing to stop deforestation and illegal activities in its concessions) it did boost its credibility, drawing many plaudits for its transparency.

Similarly, the chocolate and coffee company Nestlé decided to team up with The Forest Trust (TFT) to ensure its sourcing of palm oil was not contributing to illegal rainforest and peatland clearance – a direct response to another Greenpeace campaign attacking the company’s connections with the Indonesian palm oil producer, Sinar Mas, which had been accused of illegal deforestation.

TFT – which has also worked with Kingfisher and Marks & Spencer to improve the procurement of wood from sustainable sources – will visit plantations and verify that Nestlé’s suppliers are meeting a set of agreed palm oil-sourcing guidelines. It is a partnership that the TFT’s executive director Scott Poynton says “sends a message to the industry that segregated palm oil – that is to say factories that only deal with certified palm oil – is the way forward”.

These types of partnerships, with a clear purpose and an ability to create positive impact at scale, are likely to stand the test of time. By opening up and inviting independent scrutiny, these businesses can ill-afford to mess up.

Similarly, by adopting a more seemingly friendly approach, the NGOs in question are putting their own reputations on the line too.
The importance of partnerships will only grow, according to the C&E data, with pressure on business to demonstrate societal consideration (85%), and a desire for both business and NGO to leverage each other’s assets (80%) being the key drivers for more partnerships to emerge.

Clearly, given the structural and cultural differences of both parties, getting NGO-corporate partnerships to be effective and valuable has its challenges, not least in finding and agreeing on common goals and building trust. But the benefits of teaming up for the common good “are likely to outweigh their inherent challenges,” says Amadi. However, he warns that the perceived value of becoming bedfellows with an organisation seen traditionally as being on ‘the other side’ will only be truly realised “through effective planning and skilful navigation of real and often substantive challenges”.