ROI (in the strictly business financial sense) and "volunteering" are antonyms. And the few companies that do support charitable works classify the expense as "marketing" or "good will" and applaud themselves from the top of the mountain (e.g Salesforce).

I'm fascinated by how a company could look at volunteering from a stragic perspective. This is exactly why people distrust corporations today. A big corp can't do anything nice without thinking "what's in it for me." But of course any public company is required by law to put the investors first so that leaves only private companies able to be truly altruistic.

Our little company has a carbon-nuetral initiative, gives 1% of all profits to charity, and gives employees paid time off for volunteering. We do not expect any return for these efforts. Most fortune 500 companies following our example would be donating billions a year.

We do it because we want to be good people, not because we want to line our pockets. But of course, by being good people we hope to attract other good people to our organization and thusly build a healthy workplace. So.. maybe there is an ROI, but it's not on any spreadsheet.

posted January 10, 2008

In my work, I run across concerns from some companies about whether it is OK to expect some “return” from their community involvement or to tell others about what they are doing. If their community involvement comes from a place of authentic values and is not an attempt to whitewash other offenses, I think doing double duty - providing a benefit to both the business and nonprofit - is great and the only way to go. Having a “return” to the business is not sacreligious. In fact if there is no return at all - why bother? I recently interviewed leaders from 50 companies of various sizes for a book I am writing for businesses on how to do more effective community involvement. They all felt their community involvement had a positive impact for the company - everything from “feeling good” to strengthening their business reputation, customer loyalty, increasing sales, employee skills and retention, and access to capital.

While I believe that doing something in the local community is usually better than doing nothing - just offering up resources for any social issue (whether volunteers or cash or something else) on a first come first served basis can be a missed opportunity to invest scarce resources to synergize a greater impact in the community and to strengthen the company. My mantra is “one pack of hotdog buns to every nonprofit that asks has no real impact - for the community or the company.” Having a strategy about how to best use the company’s resources, skill sets and overall comparative advantage in service to the causes it choose to support with a link to business goals only makes sense to me and is the basis of my company’s work with businesses of all sizes.

My message is similar with nonprofit clients. With nonprofits, I always emphasize the need to think about themselves as assets in the community and to think about engaging with businesses from a sense of win/win “partnerships” — not just the old school paradigm of checkbook philanthropy. The business also needs to get something out of the engagement or it is likely to be an unsustainable relationship. The nonprofit will find themselves beating the bushes for new donors next year for their silent auction or other resource development activities which is really time consuming. With some tweaks, both sides can and I think benefit.

Links:

• http://www.businessphilanthropycoach.com

posted January 12, 2008

Hello Ms. Chambers;

You poise a very fine question. As Ms. Susan Hyatt reports, tying CSR (in its various forms) to corporate strategy is elementary to the practice of fiduciary stewardship for a company's corporate philanthropy, and reports an ROI by consequence: the benchmarks are identified and then measured along the lines of a percentage of financial return.

By seconding an employee to OTJ training with a non-profit, for example, both the costs associated with in-house training are lowered and, through the employee's increased experience, the learning curve is flattened. It also has the opportunity to affect employee morale as well as increase the related category of productivity. This can all be measured in ROI with the set metrics tied to financial goals - the engine of corporate strategy.

On the sustainability issue, a non-profit that relies on events (like silent auctions, hotdog sales or shows with a cash gate for instance) constantly operates at the mercy of changing environmental pressures and under the unnecessary/unacceptable risk of being unsustainable. This reminds me of the current problems facing my local English-speaking Rotary: operating without a focused message solely on the back of a membership fee and goodwill. (Charity begins at home is a cliche for a reason folks.)

Likewise, corporate philanthropy that is an indiscriminate tithing, risks diluting its corporate message - even confusing its marketing communications through controversy.

McDonald's is an excellent example as their target consumer is children. Their Ronald McDonald Foundation and RMcD Houses are sustainable practices because they reinforce the McDonald's message, cultivated with products like Happy Meals, colourful character icons, and decor that include indoor playgrounds. Fortunately, not every corporation need start its own foundation but McDonald's is a good example of what a non-profit tie-in accomplishes. I am not privy to disclose the ROI of this initiative, but ROI is done.

There are many worthy causes that can appeal to the corporate message agenda. Just as Ms. Hyatt states, sustainability occurs by a force of nature when the two agendae, for-profit and not-for-profit, resound together in harmony.

I had such a case happen with the YMCA of Canada in the mid 1990's when I was called in for reputation management because a community center, funded by the YMCA, was collapsing under titanic socio-economic problems. Within a one-year time frame, the period before divestiture, we addressed the problems causing the image crisis to the point where local business leaders picked up the continued funding of the community centre. Win-Win-Win. Instead of the anticipated media fervor surrounding a fiasco, my client was a media darling.

The success shone on my company's reputation with the companies that had come to rescue the community centre. I reflect this case now as one of my proudest moments in PR where I focused on controlling the light, not the prism, to manage perception. Authenticity between the weaving of corporate strategy to community service was the key to success in the ensuing positive publicity for my client and sustaining the good name of the local YMCA.

Authenticity continues to be my main concern in the consulting I do for clients today and will remain a concern into the future. Best Answer Susan Hyatt!

All the best,
Richard Whipple

Richard A. also suggests these experts on this topic:

• Larissa G.
• Dominika M.
• - -.

posted January 13, 2008

Measuring ROI on corporate giving and volunteering is difficult because part of the benefit is happier employees. Studies in positive psychology clearly indicate that people who give to others in a variety of ways are happier than those who do not. Furthermore, happier employees are smarter employees. Smarter employees come up with more creative results to all sorts of problems.

For support of these claims, look at some of the books published by Martin Seligman, Daniel Goldman, and even Malcolm Gladwell.

Considering the above, it is perhaps less important to have a strategic volunteering programs and more important to have one at all.

Links:

• http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/Default.aspx

posted January 19, 2008