Why integrate a social mission into your business?

You’re an entrepreneur with an idea and maybe a business plan, a small-business owner or the head of mid-sized company.  To expect you to add social purpose to your business just because it’s a good thing to do, is foolish.  You have a bottom-line and other obligations to meet.  You don’t have extra resources to allocate to ‘doing good.’

But doing good is a business strategy, not merely a moral argument or trend.  Businesses with a strong social mission have a competitive advantage.

1. People will talk. consumers, competitors, investors, suppliers and the press.
2. Increased productivity and employee morale.  People want to work for a greater purpose and want to know that their work makes a difference. Employees who are happier work harder and smarter because the work has become personal.  These type of employees are advocates for your company, not just employees of it.
3. Consumer preference. Consumers prefer companies that make a positive impact on the world.  Eighty-three percent of U.S. consumers want more of the products and services they use to benefit causes (2010 Cone Causes Evolution Study) and 62% of global consumers will switch brands if one works with ’good causes’ and the other does not (Edelman, 2010).
4. Innovation.  More companies like Nike, GE and Interface are using sustainability to drive innovation. Seventeen years ago, the late Ray Anderson, who served as Interface’s CEO, committed to becoming a zero-waste company by 2020. Since then, Interface has eliminated hundreds of millions of dollars in resource and waste disposal costs, increased sales by more than one billion and changed the way the entire carpet industry does business.
5. Influence.  Your company’s initiatives will be modeled as more companies realize the benefits of having a social mission.
6. Lower marketing costs.  Your mission will help your marketing. A line of grocery products founded and once produced by Paul Newman (Newman’s Own) is a somewhat banal story that merits only a mention in the press. The fact that the company donates 100% of profits to charity is a story that sticks, intrigues and encourages participation through purchase.
7. Talent recruitment.  People want to work for employees that care; a social cause is indicative of a favorable workplace.
8. Attract talent for less. Kevin Jones of Good Capital calls this “meaning premium.”   People want to work for a company that allows them to contribute to a greater purpose and are willing to be paid less for the opportunity (NB: this isn’t an argument for underpaying employees).
9. Attract young talent.  Teach for America is a top employer of exceptional college graduates. Last year 12% of  seniors at Ivy League schools applied to work with Teach for America, vying for one of the most challenging and low-paying jobs out there.
10. Talent retention.  When employees are part of a larger mission and feel their contributions make an impact in the world, they’re engaged, proud and motivated.
11. Savings in resource and disposal costs. You’ll save money by reducing energy, water and material consumption. Producing less waste and reusing water or materials costs you less to purchase and less to haul away.
12. Supplier advantage.  Stonyfield Farm pays its organic suppliers a floor price that won’t ever drop, protecting its suppliers from market swings and production hiccups. In return, when supply for organic milk or sugar outpaces demand, Stonyfield is first on the delivery list and is guaranteed a fair price because it’s built a relationship with its suppliers.
13. Risk management. Being in tune with your stakeholders alerts you to potential risks and helps you safeguard against them. An offshoot of this is that your company is better informed and positioned to identify new business opportunities.
14. Future-bound company.  Successful companies that others evangelize and model represent more than just a product or service. They represent a philosophy, culture or experience. When you channel this back into your business, you’ve made your competitive edge that much more edgier.
15. Fun.  Science proves what most of us know–making a difference feels amazing. We feel happy, enlivened and creative.

Your company (1, 5 or 200 employees) is the ideal size to run a purpose-driven business. Although larger brands get more attention for the resources they can bring to their campaigns your company holds an advantage.

1. You’re more agile. You can plan, execute, track and revise nearly on-the-fly. Less memos, less approval, less internal politicking diluting the programs.
2. You can take more risks with your social mission. You have less of a reputation to uphold. You can be a renegade, a heretic, recognized for your commitment to social change and your willingness to try new ideas.
3. You face less financial accountability. Smaller companies aren’t held to the same monetary expectations as larger ones. Your programs’ strength lies in their impact and effect rather than your company’s financial commitment.  A big brand cosmetic company’s one-time campaign cost $500,000 in an upfront investment to its partner charity, the cost of a micro-site and prize expenses, and delivered just a luke-warm impact. Your cosmetic company can affect people more directly by offering products and makeovers to women re-entering the workforce in partnership with a workforce re-entry program and your local Dress for Success chapter. Cost? In-kind only.
4. You have a fresher slate. Small companies are often seen as more personal, less greedy and less noxious. There’s less initial cynicism of your motives and choices.
5. You entice stronger non-profit partners. Smaller companies are rarely able to attract (nor should they try to) the top crust of non-profits.  With fewer wooers and less brand value, a regional non-profit will be more willing to commit time and labor to the project, as opposed to just a sliver of its name recognition.
6. You can galvanize your employees around your mission more easily. As companies need to convince consumers of their sincerity, they also need to convince their own employees. The smaller a company, the shorter this process. Employees help determine the social mission, shape it and execute it.
7. You have more of your customers’ attention.  Generally, the larger a company is the more we view it as a commodity and the less likely we are to see it as an educator or driver of good. Would you be more willing to support a pin-up campaign at Walmart or your neighborhood cupcake bakery? One of your advantages as a smaller business is the frequency of touch points that you have with customers. Use these opportunities to bring them into your mission through storytelling, contribution and advocacy.

Having a social mission is not a drain on company assets or a tangential program, it is a business strategy that yields a competitive advantage, which smaller companies can better leverage.

It attracted more customers (around $150 million worth) because it aligned its business model with sustainability.

“Sustainability is at the forefront of our business model because of customer demand,” says Gap Adventures CEO, Bruce Poon Tip. A demand that Bruce seeded when he founded Gap Adventures 21 years ago. Beyond delivering authentic, sustainable travel experiences, Gap Adventures’ mission is to stimulate local economies. Tours use small-scale lodging and support local transportation and businesses. “A true sustainability model is about engaging local communities and the traveler, and delivers on the needs of both,” says Bruce.

Offering authentic, local experiences at local prices both supports Gap Adventures’ model and mission and positions it with new demographics. Instead of marketing to retirees looking for a port-to-port experience, the operator attracts younger travels at lower prices. A popular program is the company’s “You Only Live Once” tours, priced at $1,000-$1,500 for 12-18 days of remote, un-pampered travel.

Cause capitalism isn’t a trade-off. If you find yourself frequently faced with doing the right thing OR making a profit, make doing the right thing profitable by aligning it (i.e., your sustainability goals) with your business model and consumer base.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

I’ll be speaking with Bruce on a panel about brand integrated social responsibility at Sustainable Brands on June 9. If you like his model and have questions for Bruce, email me at olivia[at]causecapitalism[dot]com.

About Bruce Poon Tip
Bruce founded Gap Adventures in 1990 off of two credit cards. Since then, Gap Adventures has become a world leader in adventure travel, offering tours on seven continents to more than 100,000 travelers a year. He founded the Planeterra Foundation to make a positive difference in the lives of people around the world.

Žižek argues that cultural capitalism (i.e., cause marketing, point-of-sale donations, fair trade and buy-one-give-one) is innocuous and naive. That this type of charitable giving leads both companies and consumers to undeservedly feel they’ve done something useful. That if we all truly cared, we would focus on system changes to eradicate poverty and leave our African-made recycled shopping bags at home.

It’s easy to take this as an argument against sustainable business–I did for a solid ninety seconds, until I thought about what it means to be a truly socially driven business. It’s not about charity. It’s about creating an environment, mechanisms and behavioral influencers that lead to sustainable change. This takes all forms: employee enfranchisement, ethical labor practices, community investment, waste reduction, environmentally sound supply chains, social investments, etc.

Žižek calls out Starbucks and TOMS Shoes for selling a diluted version of change and we, the consumer, for buying it. Surely we all agree that pink ribbons and reusable coffee mugs alone won’t turn Earth into utopia, but they can still alter behavior, priorities and resource allocation. To view this class of action as a roadblock or retardant to deeper change is lazy and short-sighted. While change sometimes looks sudden and instant (a flood wiping out a city) it’s brought on by incremental actions (each raindrop compounded with all others).

We need all manner of change–system changing individuals like Muhammad Yunus and carpooling recyclers who raise bake sale-organizing children (who grow into system-changing individuals).

Change doesn’t hinge on all or nothing. And Žižek knows this. While his critique of cultural capitalism is sincere and pointed, it’s also inspiring and serves to refocus us away from fretting about Earth Day activities to acting on our greater social mission.

HT @JohnCTownsend.

This is good news for socially driven businesses. Find your spot where market forces meet consumer values and start building.

Leif Nelson, an associate professor of marketing at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, ran an experiment to test this hypothesis at a large amusement park. He tested 28,224 people against four conditions to gauge how much they would pay for an action picture of themselves on a rollercoaster.

The four conditions were: Would you pay the asking price of $12.95? Would you pay $12.95 if half went to a nonprofit? What would you pay if you could name your price? and What would you pay if you could name your price and half of it went to a nonprofit?

In Dollars and Cents
Nelson found that only half of 1% of rollercoaster riders who were offered the photo for $12.95 bought the picture, generating a profit of 6 cents per visitor. When half of the $12.95 was promised to charity, only slightly more riders bought it, generating about 7 cents per visitor. The philanthropic element did increase demand, but just marginally.

When riders were able to name their price, more people bought the picture (8.4%) but paid significantly less (92 cents on average, less than the production cost, which caused a loss).

When riders choose their price, knowing that a nonprofit would benefit, 4.5% chose to buy the picture. This figure is lower than the pay-what-you-want non-charity option, but higher than either fixed-price condition. But the thrill is in what riders forked up: an average of $5.33, or nearly 20 cents in profit per visitor (compared to 6 cents in profit at the fixed coast), as well as more money for the nonprofit.

In short, people will pay more when they can choose their price and know that a nonprofit benefits from their decision. This pricing and partnership model is the most lucrative for a company and also produces the highest funds for a nonprofit.

According to Leif, choice is key to the success of the model. Providing customers more choice–like selecting the nonprofit beneficiary–could earn even more dollars for the company and the nonprofit.

What Does This Mean For You?

• It’s worth trying! Although we’re seeing more companies adopt pay-what-you-want models, either in their entirety (One World Everybody Eats, Panera Bread or SAME) or in part (Radiohead’s “In Rainbows” album or Mixergy’s subscription option), the model is still fringe and viewed a bit as black magic.
  .
• Be clear about what you expect. Is it greater net profits? More consumers? A stronger mechanism for social impact? More effective nonprofit partnership? Per Leif’s research you won’t attract more consumers, at least not initially, but you will earn more profits and have a deeper social impact.
  .
• This study hinged on 50% of sales channeled to a nonprofit. I don’t know how it would work with a lower (or higher) donation amount, so be aware of varying results if you try different percentages.
  .
• Beware the paralysis of choice. Leif suggests that giving customers more choice might generate greater results. Again, it’s worth testing by offering a limited number of choices to the consumer. As in all marketing (even more so when it’s cause-related), keep it simple. Too many choices, contingencies and selling points is paralyzing to the consumer.

If you’ve tried something like this or know of other businesses who have (even companies that use a non-charity pay-what-you-want model), please let me know in the comments, on Twitter (@OKL) or through email, olivia[at]causecapitalism.com.

*”Shared Social Responsibility: A Field Experiment in Pay-What-You-Want Pricing and Charitable Giving” published by Leif and his colleagues appeared in the July 2010 issue of Science magazine.