I could not agree more with this author. CSR needs to be an essential component of ALL successful organizations today. Reaching out to strengthen their local communities is a win-win for both the nonprofits in need and the companies willing to help. I can see how by companies engaging nonprofits by utilizing their best resource, their talented execs and professionals. Who best to transform and advance the level at nonprofits than the talented resources from successful organizations?
I can also see how “leveraging talent with dollars” can further move the nonprofit toward success and raising board leadership. Strengthening the nonprofit sector by providing some of the critical philanthropy necessary for these nonprofits to operate is a necessary evet during this economic environment..
Jeffrey McCloskey
Carey Business School

Alice's proposed strategy would have a leveling effect: the leadership typically exclusive to big business would be pumped into the nonprofits that operate on a neighborhood level. It would be great if evolving Transparency requirements included a reporting element that shared which businesses matched their executives with nonprofits. Such a report would magnify the 'winning' aspect of this strategy. Researchers have noted that existing CSR initiatives lose their potency because reporting is not in place to keep businesses and comsumers accountable and aware of business behaviors.In this case, isn't it important for businesses to feel motivated to engage in CSR initiatives by ensuring that their efforts will be visible to the communities? Or should true CSR be voluntary and anonymous?

If all stakeholders are going to really benefit from Alice's great proposal, shouldn't a formalized reporting process be established to promote transparency of CSR? This strategy certainly levels the playing field by investing big business leadership in the community "trenches" of nonprofits. To fully realize the 'winning' aspects, a 3rd party intermediary should regularly share with businesses and the communities who is involved in this leadership sharing. I hope that businesses recognize the long-term investment benefits of investing their leadership resources in community nonprofits. More and more I think the quarterly earning per share concern is irrelevant while on a year to year basis consumers alter their beahviors to favor companies that show interest in their well-being. I don't think the average American, Joe the Plumber, is affected significantly by EPS. Joe the Plumber wants his neighborhood strengthened and doesn't have stock shares he watches.

One of the noted featured commentators known well in business strategy, Michael Porter, at the Harvard Business School, continues to challenge those who claim that the only measure of a company’s worth is its shareholder value, at a given instant. “Shareholder value does not equal economic value,” Porter writes. Embracing strategic philanthropy might allow a greater long-term commitment by those same shareholders, when the market’s activities have cost Americans more than paper losses. Presently, the market is a mess. Some shareholders think business should conduct “only” business; and the presence of business leaders on philanthropic boards should not be part of their active mission. I would disagree; as I agree with Ms. Korngold, when she expresses, “…A higher-impact, leading edge model is necessary… .” Now, is the time, for business leaders to stake out a suitable claim to create a greater investment in the communities and economies where their employees live and work. The absence of such leadership has had severe consequences on the market and within various sectors. Continued deteriorating and demoralizing cynicism should not continue to be embraced. Perhaps, a newer “positive” trend might endear innovative ideas and fresh thinking. I submit there is no better time, than the present.

--
Jeffrey Krasney

“If you are looking for a spouse, the trick is not to look around for somebody who is amenable to change and that needs change the most,” expressed Warren Buffett at a recent Berkshire-Hathaway conference. “The trick is to find someone that is going to be fine just as they are.” In other words, as Buffett conveyed, choosing the right people at the right time and letting them do what they do best. Appearing on the Charlie Rose Show, I am reminded of what Buffett intended to do with his wealth. Last year (2007), Buffett pledged most of his fortune to the Gates Foundation. Buffett exclaimed that he admired the manner in which both Bill & Melinda Gates had sought to generate and initiate progress to combat disease on a world wide basis, against conventional wisdom. Such a viewpoint that philanthropy may be perceived as an investment to the type of solutions one of society’s principal challenges lies at the heart of “philanthrocapitialism.” In other words, potentially bringing the best investment minds – leaders in their chosen field – to a different; yet nevertheless, similar cause by partnering with individuals “with talent; and whose ideas have been proven and who do it right.” Perhaps, as quality leadership ascends to the area of philanthropy, creating other epiphany-like moments may empower leaders working together toward a shared greater purpose. As Alice Korngold expressed, “This is a ‘win-win-win for businesses; nonprofits and communities of the world.”

--

As Wall Street continues its sinking transformation; that is, as the Dow slumps to levels from five years ago, I am reminded of the sincere and genuine comments Bill Gates offered to the graduating class from Harvard in 2007. Mr. Gates expressed to the class (I am paraphrasing) that “I do have one regret..., I left Harvard with no real awareness of the awful inequities in the world and the appalling disparities of health, and wealth, and opportunity that condemn millions of people to lives of despair.” Mr. Gates continued with his address by further confessing that, “everyone on the planet deserves a basic level of health;” and as a result of witnessing such injustice around the globe, Mr. Gates chose to devote not only his time, but also his wealth to improve the welfare of those, who are not as fortunate.

Recently, I skimmed an article written in the Harvard Business Review, authored by Michael Porter and Marc Kramer, who offered their insights regarding the “improvement from a ‘competitive context’ of philanthropic efforts; that is, the quality of the business environment in locations where they operate” (with respect to business operations). Both Porter and Kramer insist, “in countries with weak or ineffective governance, companies may have an opportunity to enhance their long-term prospects, by using philanthropy to build a sustainable business environment.”

On the other hand to find a contrasting view, one only has to review noted economist and Nobel prize winning Milton Friedman's free market arguments. In 1970, Mr. Friedman argued in a New York Times Magazine article, that “there is one an only one social responsibility of business (and that is), to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits, so long as its stays within the rules of the game.” My suspicion is the wide disparities in views (on the philanthropic continuum) are beneficial; that is, to learn differing points of view; and the magnitude of such powerful sentiments.

Interestingly as the calamity on Wall Street continues, academicians such as Mr. Porter & Mr. Kramer; as well as those businessman, who have profited well in their area of expertise, as a result of their business acumen; individuals, such as, Mr. Gates; Mr. Slim-Helu and Mr. Buffett to name, but three successful entrepreneurs; those men (and many others), have embraced philanthropic activities. Nevertheless, many other successful capitalists (in addition to those individuals I mentioned) also have chosen to advance the good of society, as a whole; incorporating strategic business methods to philanthropy; and to the “social business” context.

I think that high level leaders within corporations pairing up with non-profits is a great idea not only for the non-profits, but for the corporations themselves. If the company aligns themselves with an organization that could be directly linked to their company than they could create a "cause marketing" relatiionship. Examples of this can be seen in such companies as the American Heart Association and Subway teaming up. Subway is able to promote thier healthy eating habits and the American Heart Association is able to have backing by a nationally recognized food chain. This definitely has created a perceived win-win situation.

Incorporating execs and business professional onto non-profit boards also provides an excellent opportunity for dedicated staff within the non-profits to learn skills and business approaches that they wouldn’t have learned in a pure, non-profit atmosphere. Exposure to well-matched individuals from the business community could provide inverse leadership training in negotiation, finance management, and the implementation of creative problem solving. It brings the win-win dynamic to a new level of excitement because it empowers the business, community and non-profit staff at the same time. I like David’s suggestion to bring in 3rd party intermediaries to increase the level of transparency. I would add that media exposure and interviews would also inspire other business leaders, community members and students to think of their own skills and how they could use them to enhance their communities and favorite causes.

JT another flip of the coin is the fact that corporations can also probably learn a thing or two from the staff of the non-profits. Due to the fact that non-profits tend to have budgets that are lower, they tend to have to come up with more creative or cost efficient solutions. By corporations sitting on thier boards, they are able to see some of these solutions in action, and can potentially bring this knowledge back to thier own organizations.

Heather, I agree with you. Because non-profits have traditionally had to operate with low budgets, their staff has had to become very creative in order to survive and thrive. It brings me again to the idea of media coverage and interviews. It would be very interesting to hear exactly what each member brought to the table, how they affected others, and what they learned. Also, it would be illuminating if the corporations involved would allow transparency in how they have been positively impacted by the creative problem solving methods of the non-profit staff.

The partnership would also not just be a benefit from the knowledge share taking place, but potentially in the cash flow as well. We have to believe that if a non-profit that was not currently getting a lot of limelight publicity was able to strategically align themselves with a in the spotlight corporation, it would in theory do wonders to increasing the donations that they would receive. In return, depending on what the corporation was, their customers may also have a deep routed interest in the non-profit's cause, and therefore look even more favorably upon the for profit corporation themselves, thus increasing the cash flow to both companies.

Heather, I agree with you. It is a win-win situation for everyone involved. Of course, there will be some people who accuse corporations and non-profits of using “strategic philanthropy” as an excuse to further the interests of the corporation—or, worse yet, they may have fears that non-profits will be unfavorably biased in the interest of promoting the corporation. However, I feel that it is like deliberating over the true definition is of going “green”. Even diluted attempts towards philanthropy or going green are better than no attempt at all. In time, these attempts can be modified and improved so that the benefits involved continue to evolve and grow.