Comments on: Sowing with Purpose: A Unified Corporate Social Responsibility Approach Reaps Long-Term Benefits http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/ Business, Better. Since 2005 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:33:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Leohttp://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-40290 Leo Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:14:00 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/#comment-40290 nice & clear expression nice & clear expression

]]> By: Leohttp://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-22291 Leo Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:14:00 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/#comment-22291 nice & clear expression nice & clear expression

]]> By: Gennefer Snowfieldhttp://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-10226 Gennefer Snowfield Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:52:13 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/#comment-10226 I'm happy to see that this post has sparked some good -- and much-needed -- discussion around the differences between CRM and CSR, and how best to integrate the two concepts to achieve maximum impact for both company and cause. <p> I believe that cause-related initiatives are -- and can be -- extremely valuable when a) aligned with a company mission, b) support a natural product tie-in or c) have a personal connection. <p> sweetriot (http://www.sweetriot.com) is a great example of a. as it is a company founded on the premise of fostering a multicultural world, and all of their efforts are driven to that end. So, it's a deeply rooted mission that manifests in a multitude of related causes. <p> To illustrate b., Coastal Contacts (http://www.coastalcontacts.com/) in Canada is exploring a cause-related effort with Guide dogs which is an excellent tie-in to their product that makes sense vs. tossing money at an arbitrary 'buzz' charity merely for purposes of sales. In a savvy market, efforts like that always come off as thinly veiled attempts to prey on consumer sensibilities around a cause. <p> C. is best demonstrated by Yellingbo Gold (http://www.yellingbo.com), an olive oil company from Australia, that donates large portions of its profits to causes that are close to Founder, Jeremy Meltzer's, heart. Jeremy's personal experience with the tsunami prompted him to set up The Jasmine Foundation for orphans of the tsunami, and he serves as Ambassador for UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women), both of which benefit from the sale of Yellingbo Gold. <p> All three scenarios highlight cause-related marketing efforts that work well -- even though they are not necessarily part of a broader CSR position. <p> @JamesFarrar Regarding your mention of The Body Shop and Ben & Jerry's, I would argue that those are both prime examples of companies that ARE built on a socially responsible platform, and launched with a deep commitment to giving back to society already in place. I view them as more of a classic CSR approach than a tactical cause-related execution, which is why it works so well in the mainstream. <p> A company like Starbucks, on the other hand, which was built on a more consumer capitalist model, has some hurdles before the market will adopt them as an altruistic beacon of change -- especially when they only donate a whopping .05 cents per cup as part of their Project RED program. <p> At the end of the day, however, any vehicle through which money is generated to benefit a cause vs. merely lining corporate pockets, is a good one, and sets the stage for an ongoing mindset shift toward corporate consciousness on a widespread scale. Until then, I believe that both can co-exist, and create a lot of positive change in the process. <p> Thanks to everyone for your perspectives, and I welcome any further insights in keeping this important discussion going.</p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p> I’m happy to see that this post has sparked some good — and much-needed — discussion around the differences between CRM and CSR, and how best to integrate the two concepts to achieve maximum impact for both company and cause.

I believe that cause-related initiatives are — and can be — extremely valuable when a) aligned with a company mission, b) support a natural product tie-in or c) have a personal connection.

sweetriot (http://www.sweetriot.com) is a great example of a. as it is a company founded on the premise of fostering a multicultural world, and all of their efforts are driven to that end. So, it’s a deeply rooted mission that manifests in a multitude of related causes.

To illustrate b., Coastal Contacts (http://www.coastalcontacts.com/) in Canada is exploring a cause-related effort with Guide dogs which is an excellent tie-in to their product that makes sense vs. tossing money at an arbitrary ‘buzz’ charity merely for purposes of sales. In a savvy market, efforts like that always come off as thinly veiled attempts to prey on consumer sensibilities around a cause.

C. is best demonstrated by Yellingbo Gold (http://www.yellingbo.com), an olive oil company from Australia, that donates large portions of its profits to causes that are close to Founder, Jeremy Meltzer’s, heart. Jeremy’s personal experience with the tsunami prompted him to set up The Jasmine Foundation for orphans of the tsunami, and he serves as Ambassador for UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women), both of which benefit from the sale of Yellingbo Gold.

All three scenarios highlight cause-related marketing efforts that work well — even though they are not necessarily part of a broader CSR position.

@JamesFarrar Regarding your mention of The Body Shop and Ben & Jerry’s, I would argue that those are both prime examples of companies that ARE built on a socially responsible platform, and launched with a deep commitment to giving back to society already in place. I view them as more of a classic CSR approach than a tactical cause-related execution, which is why it works so well in the mainstream.

A company like Starbucks, on the other hand, which was built on a more consumer capitalist model, has some hurdles before the market will adopt them as an altruistic beacon of change — especially when they only donate a whopping .05 cents per cup as part of their Project RED program.

At the end of the day, however, any vehicle through which money is generated to benefit a cause vs. merely lining corporate pockets, is a good one, and sets the stage for an ongoing mindset shift toward corporate consciousness on a widespread scale. Until then, I believe that both can co-exist, and create a lot of positive change in the process.

Thanks to everyone for your perspectives, and I welcome any further insights in keeping this important discussion going.

]]> By: James Farrarhttp://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-10225 James Farrar Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:00:29 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/#comment-10225 Thought provoking article. I agree w the earlier comments - these are broad strokes. Tokenistic CRM may backfire but so too may CM. For example the public service announcements for safe drinking have been criticised -- good voluntary action, good potrayal but little details about exactly how much to drink are left out. So if a firm takes that integrated approach to CM, relating to stakeholders and core business - it may find itself with conflicted interests. Not saying not to do here -- just to illustrate that CM & CRM can sometimes work and sometimes not. You mention Virgin Unite -- do they have a conflict of interest here with this initiative: http://www.virginunite.com/campaign2/Green-Spot/?nid=e3cebc02-558b-4264-a645-24dc8ca8d890 . Don't get me wrong - good effort -- but I would prefer to see these issues addressed in the core business, reducing the harmful impact of aviation, not reading about KT Tunstall's Eco Make Over. Now to CRM - I'm not sure I follow what the problem is exactly. If a brand can be stretched to drive revenue, awareness and empowerment as well as customer value & intimacy for social interests then why not? Actually, given the choice I suspect many NGOs would prefer to have the cash than an army of well being but unprepared corporate volunteers descend upon them. But why not both? But why not an integrated approach to CM/CRM? There are good examples of where this has been executed well without any of the major conflicts of interest. Body Shop comes to mind, Ben & Jerry's. Where do you see the Fair Trade Movement in all of this? Is it illegitimate? After all -- customers are asked to pay a premium above prevailing market so to raise money for ........ Anyway, like the article and the debate which I'm trying to stimulate with you . Hope I'm not too contrarian. Thought provoking article. I agree w the earlier comments – these are broad strokes. Tokenistic CRM may backfire but so too may CM. For example the public service announcements for safe drinking have been criticised — good voluntary action, good potrayal but little details about exactly how much to drink are left out. So if a firm takes that integrated approach to CM, relating to stakeholders and core business – it may find itself with conflicted interests. Not saying not to do here — just to illustrate that CM & CRM can sometimes work and sometimes not. You mention Virgin Unite — do they have a conflict of interest here with this initiative: http://www.virginunite.com/campaign2/Green-Spot/?nid=e3cebc02-558b-4264-a645-24dc8ca8d890 . Don’t get me wrong – good effort — but I would prefer to see these issues addressed in the core business, reducing the harmful impact of aviation, not reading about KT Tunstall’s Eco Make Over.
Now to CRM – I’m not sure I follow what the problem is exactly. If a brand can be stretched to drive revenue, awareness and empowerment as well as customer value & intimacy for social interests then why not? Actually, given the choice I suspect many NGOs would prefer to have the cash than an army of well being but unprepared corporate volunteers descend upon them. But why not both?
But why not an integrated approach to CM/CRM? There are good examples of where this has been executed well without any of the major conflicts of interest. Body Shop comes to mind, Ben & Jerry’s.
Where do you see the Fair Trade Movement in all of this? Is it illegitimate? After all — customers are asked to pay a premium above prevailing market so to raise money for ……..
Anyway, like the article and the debate which I’m trying to stimulate with you . Hope I’m not too contrarian.

]]> By: Arié Moyalhttp://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-10224 Arié Moyal Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:22:30 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/#comment-10224 Hi! Thank you for commenting! The study you mention shows that CRM doesn't work in all verticals and while it might drive sales it doesn't address branding or the effect CRM has on brand affinity. I made it pretty clear that CRM drives sales but what does it do beyond that? "As for the Trees for Troops campaign FedEx donates their shipping infrastructure and local treegrowers donate trees." To me this campaign doesn't qualify as a CRM campaign and is actually a good example of a CSR campaign. There is no direct financial gain for FedEx that I can see. I agree that money is very important but it's not the be all and end all. The NGOs I've spoken to agree that complementary assistance is invaluable and that a cheque only goes so far. "I recommend that my clients stay away from causes that are not relevant to their stakeholders. You don't want to alienate them or dilute the brand." What I mean by stakeholders is all of the company's publics from employees to shareholders to customers to people who live in the communities they operate in. CSR is also about risk mitigation. Engaging your employees and communities and improving communications reduces your operational and HR risk. "Start small. Find quick wins" was a lead up to you're halfway there. It's a stepping stone to a larger CSR plan. And the company's perception of the time involved is the hurdle more than the actual time itself. I hope this answers your concerns and I look forward to continuing this discussion with you! Hi! Thank you for commenting!
The study you mention shows that CRM doesn’t work in all verticals and while it might drive sales it doesn’t address branding or the effect CRM has on brand affinity.
I made it pretty clear that CRM drives sales but what does it do beyond that?
“As for the Trees for Troops campaign FedEx donates their shipping infrastructure and local treegrowers donate trees.”
To me this campaign doesn’t qualify as a CRM campaign and is actually a good example of a CSR campaign. There is no direct financial gain for FedEx that I can see.
I agree that money is very important but it’s not the be all and end all. The NGOs I’ve spoken to agree that complementary assistance is invaluable and that a cheque only goes so far.
“I recommend that my clients stay away from causes that are not relevant to their stakeholders. You don’t want to alienate them or dilute the brand.”
What I mean by stakeholders is all of the company’s publics from employees to shareholders to customers to people who live in the communities they operate in. CSR is also about risk mitigation. Engaging your employees and communities and improving communications reduces your operational and HR risk.
“Start small. Find quick wins” was a lead up to you’re halfway there. It’s a stepping stone to a larger CSR plan. And the company’s perception of the time involved is the hurdle more than the actual time itself.
I hope this answers your concerns and I look forward to continuing this discussion with you!

]]> By: KyNam Doanhttp://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/comment-page-1/#comment-10223 KyNam Doan Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:19:15 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2009/01/sowing-with-purpose-a-unified-corporate-social-responsibility-approach-reaps-long-term-benefits/#comment-10223 "I don't think cause-related marketing works in any form. In fact, I think cause-related marketing can have adverse effects in making companies appear self-involved and disconnected from the cause they are using to drive their sales." These are such broad strokes. Yes, there are instances where CRM fails. On the other hand, there are many instances of success. The Cone/Duke study scientifically proves this. Authenticity is the hurdle brands must clear, and many have done so. "This has a more beneficial impact than just writing a check, which is essentially what cause-related marketing ends up being with a disconnect from the heart of the cause." For the Trees for Troops campaign FedEx donates their shipping infrastructure and local treegrowers donate trees. It's not necessarily cutting a check. But in the case of a check, money is still very important to the health and prosperity of nonprofits. "I recommend that my clients stay away from causes that are not relevant to their stakeholders. You don't want to alienate them or dilute the brand." The stakeholders are not the customers. The stakeholders will be alienated if you're not taking care of them. If CRM delivers ROI, I assure you the stakeholders will sing. Alienating customers is the point of focus. This brings us back to having an authentic relationship with nonprofits. "Start small. Find quick wins." It contradicts what you said originally about applying a holistic approach and the biggest hurdle being "the initial time investment required to explore, define and implement the strategy." You've made some good points, but we really must discuss these further. =) “I don’t think cause-related marketing works in any form. In fact, I think cause-related marketing can have adverse effects in making companies appear self-involved and disconnected from the cause they are using to drive their sales.”
These are such broad strokes. Yes, there are instances where CRM fails. On the other hand, there are many instances of success. The Cone/Duke study scientifically proves this. Authenticity is the hurdle brands must clear, and many have done so.
“This has a more beneficial impact than just writing a check, which is essentially what cause-related marketing ends up being with a disconnect from the heart of the cause.”
For the Trees for Troops campaign FedEx donates their shipping infrastructure and local treegrowers donate trees. It’s not necessarily cutting a check. But in the case of a check, money is still very important to the health and prosperity of nonprofits.
“I recommend that my clients stay away from causes that are not relevant to their stakeholders. You don’t want to alienate them or dilute the brand.”
The stakeholders are not the customers. The stakeholders will be alienated if you’re not taking care of them. If CRM delivers ROI, I assure you the stakeholders will sing. Alienating customers is the point of focus. This brings us back to having an authentic relationship with nonprofits.
“Start small. Find quick wins.”
It contradicts what you said originally about applying a holistic approach and the biggest hurdle being “the initial time investment required to explore, define and implement the strategy.”
You’ve made some good points, but we really must discuss these further. =)

]]>