Adopting Social Sustainability Can Help Businesses

On April 14, 2021, a statement from 500 companies and CEOs was published supporting voting rights for Americans. The timing was not-coincidentally based on the ongoing efforts to gerrymander districts that had been taking place since Republicans lost the 2020 presidential election. With the apparent structural rigging of US democracy taking place, these high-profile leaders felt obligated to organize and speak as one. This statement on social justice by such a large number of prominent leaders and major brands was unprecedented. For so many corporate voices to take a stand on a controversial, political issue would ordinarily be risky, but they obviously felt that silence was not an option. And given that the gerrymandering wasn't happening by itself—many Republicans were behind it and defending it—speaking against it took a certain bravery that hasn't always been present in corporate America. It is undeniable that a shift is taking place in the way consumers view corporate leaders and brands. There is, increasingly, an expectation that companies will speak up about social issues and take a stand. Consumers now anticipate that CEOs and brands will engage in the discussion on social problems. For millennials and Gen-Z in particular, this is becoming non-negotiable. And the data bears that out. A recent study by the consultancy firm Porter Novelli found that 66 percent of the current, younger generation of so-called Gen Z'ers—those born from 1997–2012—"believe it is no longer acceptable for companies to be silent on social justice issues." And a whopping 72 percent of Gen Z'ers "believe companies have more responsibility than ever before to address social justice issues." The Porter Novelli study specifically found that Gen Z'ers expect companies to "recognize their role in systemic racism" (71%), will "cancel brands that are not willing to address racial inequity" (45%), and expect to "see themselves represented in a company’s marketing and communications" (56%). They're also willing to use the internet for enforcement and "think social media gives their generation more of a voice than previous generations" (81%) and are even willing to "use [their] social media channels to call out brands they feel are not being authentic" (48%). Another study from The Georgetown University Center for Social Impact Communication found the same to be true for millennials—those born from 1981–1996. This generation accounts for some $1 trillion in annual consumer spending—and for them, the social responsibility of companies is top of mind. Some 81 percent said they "expect companies to make a public commitment to good corporate citizenship.” And 73 percent were even willing to pay more for sustainable products. As the authors of the Georgetown study wrote, "[b]y almost any measure, millennials place a premium on corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts." Clearly, the threat from younger and middle-aged Americans is real—if corporations are worried, it's because they should be.

Trane Technologies is a company that has practically made its brand about sustainability, with a huge emphasis on the social component. The company has a dedicated webpage to sustainability where they commit, as of the time of this writing, to "achieve workforce diversity reflective of our communities, gender parity in leadership roles, and create pathways to green and STEM careers." Proving their seriousness, they cite that 22% of leadership positions in the company are held by women, they have spent $11 million on "philanthropic giving which includes donations from [their] foundation, in-kind giving, employee fundraising," and they have made an 11% increase in spending "on diverse-owned businesses in 2020." Another example of a company embracing social sustainability was when, one day in October 2005, Whole Foods funded the Whole Planet Foundation, donating 5% of its nationwide store sales from that day. The foundation is “dedicated to poverty alleviation,” aiming to “empower the world’s poorest people with microcredit in places where Whole Foods Market sources products,” according to its website. As of September 2020, it had authorized $101 million in micro-loans to micro-entrepreneurs and their family members. Similarly, Whole Foods created the Whole Kids Foundation, which “since 2011, [has] provided over 8.2 million kids with opportunities to connect with nature and food through our grants and programs,” according to its website. Along the same lines, their Whole Cities Foundation, founded in 2014, aims to “improve individual and community health through collaborative partnerships, education, and broader access to nutritious food.” Whole Foods is just one example of companies realizing that behaving as if they have a responsibility to society is attractive to consumers. Indeed, it’s known as “corporate social responsibility,” or “CSR.” And as far back as 2007, it was recognized as a potential aid to a company’s image. Specifically, an article by the Society for Human Resource Management explained that “being an ethical, socially responsible company can attract investors, customers and top talent.” Even companies that might not have ongoing programs have made visible efforts during times of crisis. For example, in 2020, USA Today compiled a list of 30 companies that were aiding Americans in the global COVID-19 pandemic. Major corporations like Apple, Amazon, and 3M as well as lesser-known ones like Beyond Meat, Casetify and Fanatics all found ways to contribute. They did things like pledge food, donate masks, give to COVID-19 aid organizations, and give special services to health care workers and first responders. Another way companies have shown their interest in addressing social issues is through criminal justice reform. The NBA Milwaukee Bucks, for instance, partnered with Represent Justice to host a basketball game in 2019 at a correctional institute. The Bucks coaching staff played against incarcerated individuals, with players serving as coaches. Prior to the game, the Bucks team members, coaches, and executives, along with Represent Justice staff, had an hour-long conversation with the incarcerated individuals. The event drew attention to the issues surrounding mass incarceration, extreme sentencing, and legal system inequality. It’s clear that companies are taking social responsibility seriously. They’re organizing programs and interacting with local governments and non-profits in the communities in which they're headquartered in order to work together to address social problems. One might wonder how many more companies could capitalize on the opportunity to show their passion for a better society.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, founded in 1889, was perhaps the first significant, environmental sustainability-focused organization in the world. Its founder, Emily Williamson, was concerned about the hunting of birds for their plumes, which were then used as fashion accessories in women's outfits. This was causing various species to approach extinction. The members of the RSPB were required to do two things: "discourage the wanton destruction of birds, and interest themselves generally in their protection" and "refrain from wearing the feathers of any bird not killed for purposes of food, the ostrich only excepted." For the next century and longer, all number of environmental sustainability efforts were made. From the establishment of Yosemite as a national park in 1890, to the creation of the National Park Service in 1916, concerns over preserving America's beautiful spaces and plentiful species were being addressed through private and public organizations. As of 2020, the NPS uses its $4 billion annual budget to look after 63 national parks and another roughly 360 national monuments, sites, preservations, recreational areas, rivers, reserves, trails, and so on. In the 1960s, with the seminal book, Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, environmental sustainability expanded to include concerns about the poisoning of the environment through toxins and other pollutants. Carson commenced work on her book after a friend of hers, Olga Owens Huckins, wrote to her describing the death of birds around her property in Duxbury, Massachusetts, resulting from the aerial spraying of DDT to kill mosquitoes. Carson's book was aggressively opposed by chemical companies like American Cyanamid, whose biochemists argued that if Carson's ideas were followed, "insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth," and Monsanto, which issued 5,000 copies of a pamphlet that "projected a world of famine and disease caused by banning pesticides." But despite this opposition, Silent Spring began a groundswell of public concern about corporate behavior that ultimately lead to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, and a new era of regulation and oversight of chemical and industrial companies. At that time, the EPA established itself as the leading protector of the environment—or certainly the one with the most authority over American businesses. Since its formation, it has focused primarily on air quality and radiation; water quality; land, waste and cleanup; chemicals and toxins; and enforcement of its rules regarding these areas. And it has been busy. Starting with the passing of the Clean Air Act in 1963, and then the Clean Water Act in 1972, both considered the United States' first and most influential modern environmental laws, the EPA has monitored and regulated how businesses interact with the environment. This includes preventing businesses from polluting as well as protecting local animals and land. Without regulations, companies would be more lackadaisical, turning to cheaper methods of operating that are damaging to the natural world. Clearly, the first century-plus of sustainability focused on the environment. And it's no wonder—there was a lot of concerning activity to address.

In 1981, Freer Spreckley, an international development consultant, wrote a book that would pave the way to today's sustainability movement: "Social Audit: A Management Tool for Co-operative Working." In it, Spreckley argued that businesses should "measure and report on financial performance, social wealth creation and environmental responsibility." Put another way, he was stating that companies should have two additional considerations besides profit: people and planet. Slightly over a decade later, in 1994, social entrepreneur John Elkington, echoing Spreckley's idea, coined the term "triple bottom line." His phrase encompassed the same three prongs that Spreckley identified: social equity, the environment, and economics. Elkington hoped that his new catchphrase would cause a fundamental shift in the relationship between entrepreneurs, stakeholders, and the communities in which they operate. After decades of percolating, the triple bottom line (TBL) is now, finally accepted as the framework for sustainability. Indeed, the United Nations defines sustainable development as “harmonizing three core elements: economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection.” Notice that these are the same as people, profit, and planet, just in a slightly different order. The UN further describes sustainability as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs," cementing the meaning of sustainability as a continuous, viable, renewable path for humankind. A more comprehensive approach to preserving humankind's future is finally here. The triple bottom line covers all the bases—and it's charting the course for businesses to follow.

“Corporate social responsibility” (CSR) is the umbrella term for company actions motivated by the desire to help and give back. Simply put, these are sustainability programs that companies think up and execute as they see fit. Thus, on the one hand, CSRs don't come with clear guidance for determining the validity or true impact of the programs derived under this concept, on the other hand, the idea is obviously to accomplish good. From initiatives that aim to reduce an organization’s carbon footprint or improve work conditions for employees, to simple goods- or financial aid-based activities, CSRs enable organizations to help in a multitude of ways. Put another way, CSRs give businesses an outlet for addressing some of the world's most pressing issues. Some examples can be found in the largest and most profitable corporations operating today. For instance, Johnson & Johnson has a CSR program to secure 35% of their energy usage from renewable sources. In terms of social and economic justice, Spotify offers 24 weeks of parental leave, and Netflix offers up to 52 weeks. And when it comes to diversity, Starbucks has pledged to hire 25,000 veterans and 10,000 refugees by 2022. Yet, CSRs represent a somewhat vague overall construct, and whether programs that are characterized as CSRs are in fact addressing the most urgent sustainability issues can be unclear. Thus, to bring accountability to the CSR movement, the United Nations in 2015 issued a specific list of CSR-oriented targets called "sustainable development goals" (SDGs). These are 17 goals, including ending poverty, reducing inequality, and providing clean water and sanitation for everyone, and according to Corporate Knights, a prominent sustainable business publication, SDGs have “quickly become a common language.” In an article by Dave Klar titled “50+ Real World Examples of Private Sector SDG Leadership,” the publication says that SDGs are causing “sustainability leadership in the private sector [to evolve] from sustainability reporting to targeted responsible action.” In other words, SDGs are focusing companies on the most urgent sustainability issues. And there are countless examples. For instance, GROSCHE, a coffee and tea producer, is working to provide clean water where it is unavailable. Similarly, Goldcorp, a gold producer, is replacing its diesel vehicles with electric vehicles that are both better for the environment and safer for its workers. There are an almost infinite number of examples of companies addressing sustainability through solar-based, wind-based, food, health and well-being, and responsible consumption SDG-based efforts. Based on the UN’s vast reach and research, SDGs offer any company a wide range of social sustainability causes to take up. Between them and CSRs more broadly, executives seem to have all the options they need to try and make a positive impact.