Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The gamification of corporate responsibility
(USC Thesis Other)
The gamification of corporate responsibility
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE GAMIFICATION OF CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY
by
Christina J. Whittaker
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS)
May 2015
Copyright 2015 Christina Whittaker
2
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 5
1.1 Addressing the Problem: Corporate Responsibility is at
Risk of Losing Relevance and Impact ............................................................................. 5
1.2 Research Question: How Can Gamification Help CR Remain Integral? ............... 8
1.3 Research Methodology and Thesis Notes ............................................................ 10
CHAPTER 2: CURRENT PERCEPTIONS OF CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY .... 11
2.1 What is Corporate Responsibility and Why is it Relevant? ................................. 11
2.1.1 CR Practice Benefits ...................................................................................... 13
2.1.2 CR Practice Criticisms and Shortcomings ..................................................... 17
2.2 The CR / Stakeholder Impact Cycle ..................................................................... 19
2.2.1 Current CR Measurement Strategies and Governing Bodies ......................... 20
2.2.2 Cultural Trends Impacting CR Stakeholders ................................................. 22
CHAPTER 3: SAY HELLO TO GAMIFICATION ....................................................... 27
3.1 What is Gamification and How Does it Work? .................................................... 28
3.1.1 Gamification Frameworks .............................................................................. 28
3.2 Gamification Criticisms ........................................................................................ 34
CHAPTER 4: CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY USE OF GAMIFICATON .............. 37
4.1 Gamification is the Solution to CR’s Lack of
Accurate Financial Measurement Tools ........................................................................ 38
4.2 Gamification of CR Enables Companies to Target Top Performers and
Increase Business Efficiency ......................................................................................... 40
4.3 Gamification of CR Aligns Psychological and Cultural Trends and
Motivations with Business Goals .................................................................................. 42
4.4 Gamification of CR Provides Stakeholders with Aesthetic and
Viral Programs .............................................................................................................. 44
4.5 Gamification of CR Enables Scalable Campaigns and Impact ............................ 45
CHAPTER 5: GAMIFIED CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY IN PRACTICE -
CASE STUDIES: AT&T’s “Do One Thing” and IBM “Innov8” .................................... 46
5.1 Gamification Case Study - AT&T Do One Thing ................................................ 46
3
5.2 Serious Games Case Study - IBM INNOV8 ........................................................ 50
CHAPTER 6: IMPLICATIONS AND BARRIERS FOR CR GAMIFICATION
AND THE FUTURE OF CR GAMIFICATION AND STRATEGIC
CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................ 53
6.1 Cost ....................................................................................................................... 54
6.2 Lack of Expertise and Executive Support ............................................................ 54
6.3 Incompatible Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................ 55
6.4 Professional Services and Industry Collaboration ................................................ 55
6.5 Big Data and ROI ................................................................................................. 58
6.6 Gamification 3.0 ................................................................................................... 59
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 60
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 63
APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 78
Appendix A: The Origin of Corporate Responsibility.……........................................... 79
Appendix B: Critical Events and Frameworks that
Shaped Modern-Day CR.....................................................................................................
81
Appendix C: The Origin of Gamification......................................................................... 85
Appendix D: Critical Events that Shaped Gamification................................................. 87
Appendix E: Key Gamification Terms............................................................................ 88
Appendix F: Gamification Governing Bodies.................................................................. 90
Appendix G: Gamification of CR Enables Increased Profiling of
Stakeholders and Engagement............................................................................................
91
Appendix H: Interview Notes - Sara Finnie Robinson, WeSpire.................................. 94
4
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Games as an Incentive ("Engagement Unleashed: Gamification for
Business, Brands and Loyalty" 2011) 26
Figure 2 - 5D Gamification Framework (“Why Gamification?” 2013) 28
Figure 3 - Octalysis: Gamification, Human Focused Design and 8
Core Drives (Chou 2014) 31
Figure 4- Octalysis: White Hat/Black Hat (Chou 2014) 34
Figure 5 - Gartner Hype Cycle (“Gartner's 2014 Hype Cycle for
Emerging Technologies Maps the Journey to Digital Business” 2014) 36
Figure 6 - Half the Sky Movement (Bradley 2014) 39
Figure 7 - Bunchball Human Desire Matrix (“Gamification 101:
An Introduction to Game Dynamics” 2012) 44
Figure 8 - Do One Thing Marketing Sample
(“Do One Thing 2013 Accomplishments” 2014) 46
Figure 9 - Do One Thing Marketing Sample (Moeger ) 47
Figure 10- Do One Thing Marketing Sample (Heidt ) 49
Figure 11 - IBM Innov8 Example ("CityOne Game") 51
Figure 12 - IBM Innov8 Example (Burke 2009) 51
Figure 13 - IBM Innov8 Example ("CityOne Game") 52
Figure 14 - WeSpire Platform Example
(“Engage the Power of Your Employees with WeSpire” 2014) 56
Figure 15 - WeSpire Platform Example
(“Engage the Power of Your Employees with WeSpire” 2014) 57
Figure 16 - WeSpire Platform Example
(“Engage the Power of Your Employees with WeSpire” 2014) 58
Figure 17 - Gamification 3.0 Evolution - (Gadiyar 2014) 59
Figure 18 - Bartle's Player Types (Ng 2014) 91
5
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Addressing the Problem: Corporate Responsibility is at Risk of Losing
Relevance and Impact
Business practices evolve. This evolution is inevitable and can be prompted by
forced government regulation, standardization based on industry best practices or even
adaptions to accommodate shifting cultural trends. While the triggers for change vary
over time, business practices mold to operate at the highest level of functionality that
benefits both the company and its stakeholders. Take the case of Enron, for example. In
its prime, Enron appeared to be the marquee company of business transparency and
profitability. Once the company’s accounting frauds were exposed and its stock
collapsed, there was a public and federal outcry for tougher standards. This eventually led
to the passage of significantly more onerous accounting requirements for public
companies including Sarbanes-Oxley and the creation of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (PCAOB). Federal legislators forever changed the standards of business
accounting and Board Oversight for every corporate entity ("The Rise and Fall of Enron”
2006). While every public organization did not engage in similar illicit business practices,
every public organization had to adapt its business reporting practices to federal
guidelines. Whether the factors are external or internal, over time, business practices will
inevitably evolve. Since the downfall of Enron damaged public trust in corporate
organizations, those entities are now extending the use of the Corporate Responsibility
business practice to mitigate that distrust.
Corporate Responsibility (CR) is a newer business practice that has risen in
prominence because of its direct connection with building brand transparency and trust
with stakeholders. This field is nearing a juncture where it will have to evolve to retain its
relevance and impact. CR has become a “standard business practice. [Stakeholders] are
now demanding more from their brands, it's no longer enough to just have the best
product. To be successful today, companies must also give back” (Kielburger 2011).
While the noble intentions of CR are rarely disputed, the practice has quickly sparked
debate about the “inherent obligation” for companies to leverage resources to address
global societal concerns. CR advocates see positive business and ethical implications in
6
support of the practice. Detractors’ perceptions range from those who believe CR is a
marketing ploy to those who believe that CR is not morally obligated or fiscally
responsible for companies (Egan 2011). Despite the division in perspective, the majority
of stakeholders believe there is a need for CR initiatives. As a result, companies are
increasingly shifting their CR programs from being arbitrarily philanthropic to becoming
strategic corporate citizens, integrating CR as a key standardized business operation and
metric. “Ten years ago…only about a dozen Fortune 500 companies issued a CR or
sustainability report. Now the majority does. More than 8,000 businesses around the
world have signed the UN Global Compact pledging to show good global citizenship in
the areas of human rights, labor standards and environmental protection. The next
generation of business leaders is even more likely to prioritize CR” ("From Fringe to
Mainstream: Companies Integrate CSR Initiatives into Everyday Business" 2012).
Just like traditional business practices, CR is evolving. “The adoption of
[corporate responsibility] has been and continues to be reactionary, a response to a
growing concern from employees, customers, and to an increasing extent investors, about
the conduct of businesses” (Egan 2011). CR’s evolution into a high profile and integrated
strategic business practice is widely praised, but there are two major factors that put the
industry at risk for losing relevance and impact in the future: the CR industry’s difficulty
measuring financial Return on Investment (ROI) on CR initiatives and declining
stakeholder engagement with CR programs.
Measuring CR Financial ROI: “What you measure is what you get, because what you
measure is what you are likely to pay attention to. Only when companies measure their
social and environmental impact will we have socially and environmentally responsible
organizations” (“Triple Bottom Line” 2009). CR is largely viewed as a positive indicator
when companies engage in projects, however, the biggest issue with the practice remains
measuring its ROI. There are many methods and tools within the CR industry that
attempt to provide organizations with a monetary business justification for CR programs.
Those tools and organizations attempting to standardize accountability for CR, such as
the Global Reporting Initiative and CSR RepTrack, are explained further below.
However, they lack consistency and accuracy in isolating the direct financial impact of an
7
individual CR program from other business factors that could impact ROI. A business
practice that cannot be consistently measured for financial ROI could potentially result in
reduced budget allocation, societal importance and stakeholder engagement. “One of the
main critiques of the CR field is the lack of data to prove the ROI on activities. Now that
the CR field has grown up from being a feel-good community to having major impact on
business value, it’s time to move from feelings to facts. They don’t have a solid business
case for why it’s a good investment for the company. Without this, it becomes more and
more difficult to defend the investments and almost impossible to be taken seriously in
the c-suite” (Rogers 2013).
Risk of Declining Stakeholder Engagement: Corporate organizations have shifted to
implementing overarching, centralized CR policies that demonstrate an image that CR is
ingrained into the mission and values of an organization. Coca-Cola provides an excellent
framework of an integrated CR strategy. In 2010 the organization began a CR program,
5by20, aimed at providing five million young women entrepreneurs with mentors,
networking opportunities and business/financial services by the year 2020. While this
initiative seems disassociated with the mission of Coca-Cola, the integrated strategy
comes in the way “entrepreneur” is defined. “We define “entrepreneur” as a woman who
owns or operates a business connected to our value chain or has the potential to be
connected to our value chain. Examples include farmers, shopkeepers, micro-distributors,
recycling collectors, artisans and more” ("Women's Economic Empowerment - The
Coca-Cola Sustainability Project" 2012). This campaign was established and
implemented on a corporate leadership level, aligns directly with the mission and values
of the Coca-Cola organization and was likely chosen for its potential to create positive
business implications for the organization as a whole. These integrated policies are meant
to represent a unanimous vision on behalf of all company stakeholders to achieve both
short and long-term impact goals (according to whatever metric is being used as an
indicator of success).
This strategic approach to CR has proven effective in terms of enhancing corporate brand
reputation and positive community impact, but raises the question of whether
8
organizations are losing the interests and voices of individual stakeholders in their CR
implementation. With increased CR corporate integration, are organizations pursuing
unity of voice at the risk of diversity of thought? According to the management
consulting firm McKinsey & Company, centralized CR initiatives can produce major
flaws. “Head-office [CR] initiatives rarely gain the full support of the business and tend
to break down in discussions over who pays and who gets the credit. Centralized [CR]
teams can [also] easily lose touch with reality—they tend to take too narrow a view of the
relevant…stakeholders. Managers on the ground have a much better understanding of the
local context, who really matters, and what can be delivered” (Browne, Nuttall 2013).
This caution against overly-centralized CR initiatives is not yet widely acknowledged
within the CR community. While it does not advocate for the elimination of strategic,
centralized approaches, it does call for organizations to realize that these CR programs
may not be representative of stakeholder sentiments and thus, are at risk of producing
diminishing returns to an organizations long-term competitiveness and overall societal
relevance and impact.
The challenge of measuring financial ROI and empowering employees through
centralized CR initiatives will not cause the immediate demise of the practice. In fact, the
CR practice may never cease to exist. however, if organizations want to maintain their
competitive advantage, popularity and social/environmental impact through CR
programs, companies will have to evolve in their strategic implementation of CR
programs to address and mitigate these industry risks.
1.2 Research Question: How Can Gamification Help CR Remain Integral?
“‘[CR] is an old-fashioned idea that needs to be upgraded’…‘Companies need to
say: ‘We want to make money, sure, but we also care about our effect on society and the
environment. And that comes through in the kinds of jobs we provide, the kinds of
products we make and the ways in which we use resources’’” ("From Fringe to
Mainstream: Companies Integrate CSR Initiatives into Everyday Business" 2012).
As centralized CR initiatives become an industry standard and the practice of CR
expands, it is critical to preempt threats to the validity of the practice and barriers to its
effectiveness in engaging stakeholders. While CR is a popular concept, organizations’
9
struggles in building a financial justification for the practice and stakeholder engagement
are issues that must be addressed to ensure that the practice delivers positive returns to
organizations. These are complex, multi-tiered challenges, but there are plausible
solutions that can aid to address each of the two major CR concerns.
Gamification refers to the “concept of applying game-design thinking to non-game
applications to make them more fun and engaging. Gamification [creates] fun and
engaging experiences, converting users into players” (Owen 2013). Gamification uses
incentive-based rewards and interactive digital platforms that allow players to progress
toward a specific goal. Progress and performance is tracked using profile accounts linked
to each player that enables organizations to influence and measure stakeholder behaviors
and performance. The adoption of gamification in corporate environments has resulted in
an increase of engaged stakeholders, driven innovation and measured ROI using
performance and tracking metrics.
Gamification is an emerging field in the CR industry, but in key areas where CR
practices fall short including financial ROI measurement and declining stakeholder
engagement, gamification offers a solution. Linking specific CR goals with individual
user accounts in a gamification system allows for organizations to track the resulting
performance such as costs saved, frequency of interaction and funds raised. Gamification
is an innovation that can address both of CR’s critical risks and transform them into
opportunities. Though gamification is currently a minor player in the CR industry,
companies are increasingly finding its extensive value in increasing employee
engagement, financial ROI measurement, and its inherent integration with social media
that provides a degree of organic viralness that can bring prompt a higher value of
positive corporate branding impact. “Gamification is indeed proving to be an effective
new tool in the [CR] practitioners' toolkit, and it can help you reach and engage with
sectors of your workforce and communities that you may not have been able to reach
previously” (Owen 2013). Though gamification can be leveraged as an effective tool, it is
important to note that gamification is not the answer for every CR initiative. Gamification
is most effective when the end objectives are for employee and public engagement, cost
10
savings, fundraising and educational awareness. The case studies further explained below
each deal directly with one of these categories.
Through the analysis of case studies and current CR practices, this thesis will
investigate the niche field of CR gamification and its plausibility as a widespread solution
for organizations to use for financial ROI measurement and to increase stakeholder
engagement. Strategic implications of CR gamification will also be explored for its
ability to potentially transform the business practice into an adaptable, integral and
potentially profit-generating division. This thesis will also take a deeper look at the
societal cultural trends that directly impact and influence the actions, behaviors and
perspectives of CR stakeholders to inform future strategic CR implementation choices.
1.3 Research Methodology and Thesis Notes
To properly cover the topic of CR gamification, both primary and secondary
research studies were conducted to gather all critical information. Primary research
consisted of expert interviews with both CR and gamification executives where they
spoke on the topics relevant to their individual companies and the industry as a whole.
Expert interviews were conducted over the phone and lasted approximately 45 minutes.
Secondary research was conducted using publications such as Forbes, CSRWire,
GamificationCo, TriplePundit to obtain information on the background, evolution,
current perceptions and the strategic implications of both the CR and gamification
industries individually and collectively. CR gamification case study information was
sourced from trade publications, corporate websites and scholarly articles that provided
concrete guidance on potential applications of gamification within the CR framework.
Case study companies were chosen based on the extensiveness of impact and documented
results of their CR gamification systems.
Gamification Terminology Use
In the gamification industry, there is a distinct difference between the term
“gamification” and “serious games.” Gamification uses key elements from traditional
games, such as progress bars, leaderboards, badges, etc. and applies them to things that
are not games. In contrast, Serious Games are applications developed with “game
11
technology and design principles having training, situation simulation or education while
entertaining the user as a primary purpose” ("What Is Serious Gaming" 2010). Despite
the distinction, this thesis will use the general term Gamification to apply to the entire
field of gamified activity (including Serious Games) with the expectation that
information will apply both to Gamification and Serious Games initiatives. If arguments
don’t apply to both fields, the difference in impact will be explicitly noted.
The field of gamification also uses a significant amount of industry-specific
language. As opposed to listing a reference list of terms and definitions within the main
body of the thesis, key terms industry-specific terms and definitions are located in the
Appendix E. There is also a difference between “social games” and gamification. This
distinction is detailed later in this thesis.
CHAPTER 2: CURRENT PERCEPTIONS OF
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY
2.1 What is Corporate Responsibility and Why is it Relevant?
Corporate Responsibility is defined as “the continuing commitment by business to
contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce
and their families as well as of the community and society at large" (Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR)"). Because of the complexity of the topic, there is not a standard
definition of the term Corporate Responsibility. Also referred to as social responsibility,
corporate social responsibility, corporate philanthropy, sustainability and corporate
citizenship, CR can have multiple connotations depending on its context. While the
definitions for CR vary, CR is a method in which companies adopt a humanized persona
and proactively act on behalf of factors external to the immediate profit-driving goal of
their organizations. CR initiatives provide companies the opportunity to holistically
account for the environmental, ethical, legal and philanthropic aspects of business and
enables these factors to be considered along with other key performance metrics
(Brusseau, 2011). Some of the key CR categories include: human rights, ethical
governance, gender and racial equity, labor standards, anti-corruption, societal equity and
environmental efficiency.
12
In addition to general CR definitions, companies many times adhere to their own
definitions. As a benchmark, we will use The Walt Disney Company as an example of
internal interpretation and ownership of the CR term. The Walt Disney Company
(TWDC) is ranked seventh on the 2014 list of Fortune’s “World’s Most Admired
Companies” and consistently ranks in the top 10 in several publications ranking
“Companies with the Best CR Reputations.” As an industry leader in CR, TWDC takes
the approach of serving as a “corporate citizen” and “commits to be among the most
admired companies in the world. This guides [TWDC’s] actions as a company
and…efforts to promote the happiness and well-being of kids and families by inspiring
them to join [TWDC] in creating a brighter tomorrow”
(“Citizenship"). Emily Cichy,
Senior Manager in Corporate Citizenship at TWDC, states that the organization addresses
citizenship with an integrated approach that utilizes four teams to meet performance
goals: Community Engagement, Environment Conservation, Signature Programs &
Communications and Insights & Integration. All of these specialties unite to present a
cohesive citizenship message to key stakeholders, especially the professional groups who
are Disney’s main focus when reporting (i.e. investors, NGOs, think-tanks, etc.).
Organizations like Disney choose to tailor their CR program as an internal measure as
well as external benchmark of progress that can be communicated to target audiences.
Since the origin of CR (see appendix for historical CR events and practice
evolution), there has been an ongoing debate about its validity as a business practice.
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and
engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of
the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or
fraud” (Friedman 1970). This infamous statement from Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate
and economist, sparked the largest discussion regarding the obligation of organizations to
engage in CR. The debate continues on into the present day because of the extensive
impact CR programs have on the general public. The discussion surrounding CR’s
business application is not always clear-cut; multiple factors need to be evaluated when
assessing the business practice’s validity. Though Milton Friedman strongly negated the
argument for CR implementation, even he further dictates in his statement a support of
13
CR programs that positively impact long-term profitability. To properly assess the
validity, relevance and effectiveness of CR, both the benefits and criticisms must be
considered.
2.1.1 CR Practice Benefits
Advocates of CR, in line with the current societal landscape, believe that CR
programs are now considered a corporate obligation, and also take their reasoning a step
further to state that CR is indeed a moral obligation for companies. Learning programs,
philanthropy, volunteer days, professional services and disaster relief have become
staples in the expanding field of CR. Consumers, governments and the public expect
transparency, community engagement, and ethical behavior from organizations in a way
that will do more than simply grow profits. With the advent of innovative technology,
consumers can now directly communicate their desires with organizations and publicly
protest when they fail to meet expectations in regard to corporate citizenship. “It is
important for businesses not only to provide products and services to satisfy the
customer, but also to ensure that the business is not harmful to the environment in which
it operates. In order for an organization to be successful, the business must be built on
ethical practices” (“The Importance of Corporate Social Responsibility" 2013).
Companies using CR programs can categorize their benefits in four major
categories: Growth, Returns on Capital, Risk Management and Management Quality
(Bonini 2009).
Growth
CR allows organizations to encounter growth through several channels including new
market potential, new consumers, new products and innovation. If an organization
becomes proficient at a particular CR activity, i.e. LEED sustainability, this could
potentially lead to a new market service offering, attract stakeholders interested in
patronizing sustainable organizations and prompt existing stakeholders to innovate new
ideas to improve the practice (Bonini 2013). While every CR initiative will not always
result in growth in each segment, many times it allows for at least one growth segment to
experience positive returns. Unilever provides a good example of how CR initiatives can
14
lead to new products through innovation. “Using the ‘lens of sustainability’…Unilever
was able to innovate new products such as a hair conditioner that uses less water. Without
sustainability, the company’s research and development efforts possibly wouldn’t have
led to such a product” (Epstein-Reeves 2012). Without launching a sustainability
campaign, Unilever would not have noticed that their home-use products accounted for a
substantially high percentage of their water footprint. This allowed the company to
innovate a design a product that served a CR need and target “50 million households in
water-scarce countries with laundry products that deliver excellent results but use less
water by 2020” ("Water Use by Consumers" 2015). Saving water, in conjunction with
other sustainable initiatives including reducing energy, materials and waste resulted in
Unilever saving $395 million between 2008 and 2013 ("Unilever's Sustainability
Program Saves $395M since 2008" 2013). This cost savings gave Unilever a significant
advantage over competitors in a method that did not rely on external action such as
increased sales and could not easily be duplicated by competitors to the same level of
success.
Returns on Capital
CR ROI for companies is complex. While current measurement methods struggle to
capture financial ROI, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) methodology and CR annual
shareholder reports are the leading models of communication impact to stakeholders.
“Triple Bottom Line works on the assumption that the corporation is a member of the
moral community, and this gives it social responsibilities. This theory, created in 1994 by
John Elkington, founder of a British consultancy called SustainAbility, focuses on
sustainability, and requires any company weigh its actions on three independent
scales: economic sustainability, social sustainability, and environmental sustainability”
(Brusseau 2011). TBL gives many organizations a format with which to communicate
CR’s “bottom line” in frameworks such as financial performance (if measurable), training
achieved, money data, etc. One of the most popular metrics that comes close to
providing a business case with tangible CR ROI are the cost efficiencies realized as a
result of environmental programs. “These programs can help companies realize
15
substantial savings by meeting environmental goals—for instance, reducing energy costs
through energy efficiency, reducing input costs through packaging initiatives, and
improving processes. Such efficiencies often require upfront capital investments to
upgrade technologies, systems, and products, but returns can be substantial” (Bonini
2013).
Companies have also begun to produce quarterly and/or annual official CR or
“Sustainability” reports in effort to define and communicate the value created by key CR
metrics. Sustainability reporting requires companies to gather information about
processes and impacts that they may not have measured before. This new data, in
addition to creating greater transparency about firm performance, can provide firms with
knowledge necessary to reduce their use of natural resources, increase efficiency and
improve their operational performance” (Bramhall). Sustainability reporting allows
organizations to take ownership of their CR impact business narrative, define the metrics
they desire to highlight and communicate that information to stakeholders. Effectively
communicated reports can prompt an increase in the perceived brand transparency and
value for the CR program’s company. “According to a study conducted by the Reputation
Institute, seventy-three percent of consumers across the 15 largest markets in the world
are willing to recommend companies that are perceived to be delivering on Corporate
Responsibility” (Fombrun 2013).
Risk Management
“Companies often see environmental, social, and governance issues as potential risks, and
many [CR] programs in these areas were originally designed to mitigate them—
particularly risks to a company’s reputation but also, for example, problems with
regulation, gaining the public support needed to do business, and ensuring the
sustainability of supply chains” (Bonini 2013). In reference to supply chains,
organizations that benefit from risk management ensure that their CR initiatives include
ethical practices by all partners in their supply chain so as not to be associated with and
negatively impacted by unethical brands.
16
In regard to regulation, CR programs can effectively lead to enhanced regulatory
relationships as companies may be either invited to help shape policy if their individual
initiatives, have wide-spread success or lobby political leaders who directly impact their
topics of interest. “Some companies…are using their face time with lawmakers to lobby
for good. Corporations, with their carefully cultivated connections, wider lobbying
leeway, and proficiency in influence, are often better equipped to make the case for
stopping domestic violence, improving safety on the roads, thwarting climate change, and
fostering economic development—to name just a few social change efforts. Accordingly,
some companies are steering government dollars to social problems, changing laws, and
encouraging new approaches to government services” (Peterson 2009). Mary Kay made a
stance for the social good in 2005 when national directors from the organization rallied
members of the Mary Kay independent sales force to lobby state legislators to reauthorize
the Violence Against Women Act. Employees drove pink Cadillacs to the U.S. Capitol
and successful advocated for $500 million in additional funding to fight violence against
women in all its forms. President George Bush signed the Act into law in 2006 (Peterson
2009).
Management Quality
Though there are several other benefits from engaging in CR initiatives, improvement in
management quality is critical and heavily influences an organization’s ability to increase
levels of employee engagement. “A study from the Corporate Leadership Council found
that highly engaged organizations can decrease employee turnover by 87 percent and
enhance productivity by 20 percent. As of 2014, research studies showed that 88 percent
of employees don’t have a passion for work (Fermin 2014). In the current economic
climate, demand for talent is peaking but the supply of qualified candidates runs short.
Employee beliefs about an organization are key; companies that can communicate a
compelling story about their commitment to corporate responsibility and sustainable
business practices yield better results in regard to employee productivity and retention
(Makower 2014). Employees are critical to the success of an organization as they are the
most credible ambassadors to the public. In a 2014 research study conducted by Deloitte
17
Consulting, “50 percent of Millennials surveyed want to work for a business with ethical
practices” (“Big Demands and High Expectations The Deloitte Millennial Survey" 2014).
This insight is critical because Millennials are expected to be 50% of the workforce by
2020 (Pollak 2015). Organizations that engage this population will be able to realize cost
efficiencies in hiring as well as productivity. “While the argument over the profitability
of CSR wages on, few can disagree about the increasing importance of CSR to an
engaged workforce. Companies that create employee-driven CSR programs help workers
feel a sense of greater purpose around their jobs; help attract top talent and then keep
them; and provide strong platforms for employee leadership and development” (Scott
2014).
2.1.2 CR Practice Criticisms and Shortcomings
While the overarching trend in regard to CR shows an adoption of the practice,
there are still some critics. Critics of CR programs don’t disagree with the premise that
organizations have the resources and ability to positively impact “the greater good.”
However, many refute the notion that CR is a moral obligation for organizations, cite the
measurement inefficiencies in the industry and believe that it can be detrimental to
corporate profitability. Every critic does not hold the views stated below nor do the
perspectives explicitly integrate or coexist; the only similar principle is that they highlight
perceived flaws in the practice of CR.
One major issue within CR actually stems from participants in the field itself.
Though more companies are adopting CR programs, they are increasingly ineffective in
communicating the impact and relevance of these new efforts to stakeholders.
Stakeholders are can be unknowledgeable, uninterested and untrusting of the practices
guaranteed by company CR programs. A survey conducted by the MIT Sloan
Management Review found that “companies do not communicate the details and extent of
CR initiatives clearly and consistently; only 37% of employees surveyed were even
aware of their company’s CR programs. While 71% of companies surveyed indicated CR
practices are developed and managed at the CEO level, employees want greater roles in
CR activities (“Effective Internal Marketing of CSR Can Attract and Retain Top
Employees” 2010). Furthermore, “56-61% of consumers across the 15 largest markets in
18
the world are neutral or not sure if the companies can be trusted to deliver on CR
dimensions: Citizenship, Governance, and Workplace” (Rogers 2013). While
organizations are becoming more proficient in centralizing the selection and
implementation of CR initiatives, there is a growing noticeable disconnect between top-
down corporate goals and employee knowledge and engagement with the CR efforts.
Factors that may contribute to the lack of awareness of CR initiatives could be ineffective
communication and/or organizations are selecting causes that are relevant to corporate
goals but not impactful in the communities of stakeholders. Both of these factors lead to
sunk costs. CR programs that are beneficial externally but ineffectual internally harm
companies in the long-term.
David Vogel, author of The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of
Corporate Responsibility, argues against the notion that CR provokes a consistent and
predictable reaction in consumers: They patronize companies seen as socially responsible
and reject those that are not responsible. Coined as the “market for virtue,” Vogel states
that the argument supporting the relationship between consumers and an organization’s
responsible behavior is weak. “There is a ‘market for virtue,’ but it is a very limited one.
Nor is it growing”
(Vogel 2008). As a tangible example, Vogel uses Exxon to dispute the
perceptions surrounding the market for virtue.
“The firm with possibly the world’s poorest environmental reputation is Exxon
Mobil, largely due to its reputed indifference to the problem of global climate change and
its continued focus on fossil fuels. Yet Exxon-Mobil is one of the world’s most profitable
corporations. Over an extended period of time, it has performed far better financially
than BP, which changed its brand to Beyond Petroleum to emphasize its responsibility to
help reduce the world’s dependence on fossils fuels, and which, unlike Exxon-Mobil, has
supported mandatory greenhouse gas reductions” (Vogel 2008).
Vogel argues that if the market for virtue were truly that pervasive, in a free
market economy, irresponsible companies would not be operational because consumers
would refuse to patronize the organizations, thus forcing bankruptcy. In contrast, many
traditionally unethical organizations like Exxon still thrive. Vogel and many dissenters
agree that consumers rarely investigate the social records of companies; therefore, CR
initiatives cannot be concretely linked to increasing profitability for organizations (at
least in terms of increased revenue from external sources). Some organizations are
19
sustainable in their daily operations and cater to niche markets interested in patronizing
sustainable organizations, however, the majority of organizations will conform to the
normal parameters of a free market system regardless of CR (Vogel 2008).
Another perspective that disputes CR’s impact on organizational profitability
comes from the Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management. Researchers
state that “CR expenditures generate insufficient returns and hence reduce shareholder
value, consistent with the Friedman view. However, we also find that companies whose
CR spending exceeds investor expectations experience positive stock returns, consistent
with evidence promoted by CR proponents” (Lys 2013). The Kellogg team argues that
when stockholders observe organizations investing finances in CR programs, this acts as
economic “signal.” Investors perceive an organization’s attention to a strategic CR
program as a sign of positive financial performance which results in positive stock
returns for the company. Kellogg argues that CR programs typically produce ROI that is
lower than the cost of capital, but the investment signifies that an organization has
sufficient discretionary income to do so, prompting an increase in investments.
Because CR programs are discretionary and cover an overwhelmingly large
amount of programs tailored to the needs and goals of each participating organization,
there has historically been no standard method of reporting. One of the most popular
forms of measurement, TBL, is unable to measure each bottom line outcome in terms of a
standardized cash measurement. CR metrics tracked don’t always have direct financial
implications (i.e. amount of teachers trained, disaster relief packages distributed, etc.).
While some organizations have adopted an indexing system that provides a consistent
measurement framework, a monetary ROI cannot be consistently and accurately
established. Several organizations have been able to directly measure CR programs in
reference to cost efficiencies based on environmental initiatives (i.e. paper reduction,
energy efficient offices, etc.). However, this seems to be one of the only metrics that can
be tracked consistently and accurately that justify a CR business case.
2.2 The CR / Stakeholder Impact Cycle
With any business practice there is always debate about the implications of the
practice. Based on the main criticisms and shortcomings of CR previously detailed, the
20
major flaws fall into two main categories: financial ROI measurement inconsistency and
disconnect between centralized, top--down corporate CR messaging/ programs with
stakeholders. At its core, a company’s CR initiatives impact the general public; in turn,
the general public populates the stakeholder base for CR. Just as CR impacts society
through its philanthropic activity, society, as a conglomerate of stakeholders, has a
reciprocal impact on the effectiveness of CR programs and subsequent company
performance metrics. Because of this cyclical relationship, organizations need to
thoroughly assess measurement options for CR to justify a business case for a program as
well as factor in shifting cultural trends that directly impact stakeholders and society as
whole. These behaviors should closely inform the future company CR implementation
strategies.
2.2.1 Current CR Measurement Strategies and Governing Bodies
Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, leading authorities on strategic competition and
co-founders of FSG, the social change consulting firm, and The Center for Effective
Philanthropy, indicate that “the essential test that should guide CSR is not whether a
cause is worthy but whether it presents an opportunity to create shared value—that is, a
meaningful benefit for society that is also valuable to the business” (Kramer 2006).
Because of its societal impact, there are a growing number of measurement and
benchmarking methodologies that offer organizations a framework when assessing the
key performance indicators of a campaign aside from TBL and individual sustainability
reports. Although financial ROI remains absent from these methods, the growing number
of measurement options has prompted the discussion of positioning CSR as a long-term
investment in a company’s future competitiveness.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
In recent years, a growing number of Fortune 500 companies, both U.S. and international,
have adopted the standards of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). “The Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) produces one of the world’s most prevalent standards for
sustainability reporting – increasingly required by companies large and small “ (“GRI”
2015). The GRI provides users with a “Sustainability Reporting Framework” (SRF)
21
aimed to centralize and standardize organizational transparency and provide a reporting
methodology for economic, environmental, and social performance and impacts. The
SRF model is comprehensive in its reporting and accessible for public use which has led
to its widespread adoption (“What is GRI?”). The model is developed using a “due-
process” system that intentionally engages multiple stakeholder consultants as well as
allows a “public comment period” to ensure that the framework will be applicable to a
broad range of CR programs (“What is GRI?”).
Within the SRF, GRI includes both general Guidelines and sector guidance. The
Guidelines “assist in the preparation of sustainability reports by organizations, regardless
of their size, sector or location [and] offer an international reference for all those
interested in the disclosure of governance approach and of the environmental, social and
economic performance and impacts of organizations” (“What is GRI?”). The actual
output from the GRI is a set of guidelines and suite of serves that organizations can use
when creating their own sustainability reports.
Reputation Institute
The Reputation Institute is a consultancy specializing in the field of brand reputation that
offers CSR RepTrack, an annual report and tool that ranks companies based on their CR
reputation. CSR RepTrack captures both the emotional and rational responses that factor
into the reasoning of consumers when assessing brand reputation (Dill 2014). “The
emotional measurement considers feeling, esteem, admiration, and trust, while a separate
measurement considers the rational explanations for those emotions with regard to seven
factors: leadership, performance, products and services, innovation citizenship,
governance, and workplace” (Dill 2014). The report data is based on the results of a
consumer survey with over 55,000 participants from 15 countries. Because this public
ranking of organizations based on CR is published publicly, organizations are
incentivized to use their determinant metrics in the development of CR programs in order
to remain competitive in the ranking (Dill 2014).
22
International Organization for Standardization (ISO 26000)
ISO 26000 is at times cited as the international standard guidance for CR however it is
not enforceable by law. Like the GRI, the ISO provides guidance based on the results of
based on the collaborative teams of international CR professionals in Working Group
Plenary Sessions. The organization does not offer official certifications but serves as an
industry leader in providing guidance to organizations working to enhance their
sustainable development. “The standards [also] provides insight into trends and
characteristics of social responsibility” ("The Importance of Corporate Social
Responsibility" 2013).
2.2.2 Cultural Trends Impacting CR Stakeholders
As previously explained, just as CR impacts society, society impacts CR via
stakeholder behaviors. The behavior of individuals is largely attributed emotions, changes
in social standards and the behavior of others. “Sociologists and psychologists have
known for years that people adopt new behaviors not because of a rational or deliberate
decision to change what they do, and how they do it. Rather, it is born out of an
emotional and social response to human nature, and the need to adapt to surroundings.
New social norms are therefore more likely to be fueled by social movements that are
powered by emotion and critical mass, than by data, details, and information” (Humlen
2014).
In order to strategize for future business processes and to anticipate the need of
stakeholders to maintain or increase engagement via CR programs, it is critical to account
for and align implementation strategies with societal and cultural trends. Ignoring shifting
trends could cause an organization to lose relevance while others capitalize on tailoring
business solutions to gain a competitive advantage. Below are key trends that will
directly impact company stakeholders and society and thus, should inform the future
actions of organizations.
23
Trend Predictor: 2014 - 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer
Decreased Trust in Business and Leadership, Rise of Dispersed Authority:
“The CEO taking the lead, promising efficiency and efficacy is not working. In a world of
dispersed authority, a new compact of trust must be forged between the individual and
the corporation. The individual must feel empowered to speak out, to be the other half of
the innovation engine...to be a key part of the process of accepting of the new”
("Executive Summary - 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer" 2015).
“Demonstrate personal and societal benefits from innovation. There must be a new
relationship of equality between the company and the individual. The broader objective
should be a better world, as seen in the 81 percent of respondents who believe that
business can both make a profit and improve society. The smart company will cultivate
the new power of interested individuals who seek to collaborate toward a common
purpose, so that marketing becomes a movement. ("Executive Summary - 2015 Edelman
Trust Barometer" 2015).
It is clear that stakeholders have lost trust in business’ ability to act ethically in a way that
will be beneficial for themselves and the company. The Trust Barometer details that for
the first time since 2007 trust in business has declined in 16 of 27 responding countries
and sits below 50 percent. This data is critical to understanding how people will react to
initiatives formulated and pushed top-down by corporations. Stakeholders will become
resistant if they feel that an initiative is being imposed on them without consent or
without it being truly ethical and responsible in its intentions. Stakeholders believe that
their insight should inform the strategic direction of the organization and that their
opinion should be valued equally with senior leadership. This trend in distrust only
exacerbates the disconnect between stakeholders and organizations when it comes to
achieving corporate goals that are not representative of stakeholder interests. As trust in
business leadership declines, the perspectives of employees will become increasingly
valuable and prominent. Organizations that don’t actively engage this population in
crafting strategic direction for CR and branding will alienate the central company
ambassadors who could have provided a competitive advantage. Ignored stakeholders
could potentially cause an organization to decrease in long-term profits by having to
increase operating costs for departments such as marketing and hiring.
24
Trend Predictor: JWT Intelligence Trends
Quantified Self – The “Quantified Self” is a term original used in 2007 by Gary Wolf
and Kevin Kelley, Wired Magazine editors. This term borrows from the cultural trend in
shared enthusiasm for the ability to use technology to gain increased self-knowledge
through personal activity tracking. Consumers are now able to proactively provide
solutions through continuous data acquisition to questions that previously eluded them
such as “why am I gaining weight?”, “how can my home be more energy efficient,” “why
don’t I feel rested in the morning?” etc. This cultural shift in consumers accessing this
information prompted the increase of the number and expansiveness of digital
technologies that monitor and report data of personal, physical, social and mental
performance. The primary appeal in consumers trending towards the quantified self is
that it gives greater introspective discovery and delivers candid and intimate information
custom to the user. Now in addition to what a consumer may feel about themselves both
externally and internally, there is a device that gives further concrete data to inform
behavior and performance (Wolf 2010). When implementing CR programs, quantifying
an individual’s contribution could serve as a bridge to allow the participant to form more
of an emotional attachment with the initiative and increase productivity.
Age of Impatience: In the current economy where consumers are accustomed to instant
information and 24/7 access to resources, businesses find more success when they
provide consumers with immediate feedback. There is now little tolerance for waiting for
information and there is inherent gratification in immediate results and information made
available for consumption and subsequent action (Mack 2013).
Speaking Visually: Along with the trend of impatience comes the importance of
presenting information in a visual and aesthetically pleasing medium. “Visual
vocabulary…relies on photos…video snippets and other imagery, largely supplanting the
need for text” (Mack 2013). Streamlined and modern visual representations of products
that communicates the value and benefits is critical in commanding the attention of
consumers in industries where attention is easily divided. Consumers extend more
credence to a brand that effectively leverages visuals in messaging campaigns.
25
Trend Predictor: Forbes
Super-personalized – “Personalization has been taken out of the hands and tastes of
consumers. Advances in technology mean that products are able to read consumers and
give them what they want – sometimes without even being asked” (Barkworth 2014).
While increasing in mindful living and a commitment to sustainability, stakeholders are
becoming more introspective; they have a greater expectation that every experience that
they patronize is customizable to their wants and needs. Similar to the rise in the
“Quantified Self,” an increasing number of stakeholders want to see that their input and
work is valued and thus, reflected in the outcome of anything they react with, especially
their workplace and technology platforms. People are searching for autonomy in what
they select to do and what goals they seek to accomplish as well as an ability to achieve
mastery in the chosen activities.
Trend Predictors: Trendsactive and Saatchi & Saatchi S Cultural Trends
Gamification – “Games and playfulness are everywhere around us. They have an
increasing impact on education, business and society in general. Everyone likes to play
and the reasons why are quickly becoming clear. Game principles have proven to be
highly motivating – and sometimes even addictive. The use of these game mechanisms
can completely and positively change the way you(r business) work(s)” ("SOCIETAL
TRENDS: Changing Behavior in a Dynamic Society").
Data trend analysis from the sustainability organization Saatchi & Saatchi S shows that:
• 53 percent of smartphone owners 66 percent of tablet owners play social games daily
• 50 percent of people online between the ages of 18 to 44 play social games daily
• Among those employed, 47 percent of employees used social gaming while at work
• Among those employed, 56 percent stated that they were either extremely interested
or very interested in using games as an incentive to increase productivity
("Engagement Unleashed: Gamification for Business, Brands and Loyalty" 2011).
With the advent of accessible online gaming as well as gamified activities, the general
public has become increasingly familiar and accepting of the use of gaming mechanics
26
for both entertainment and business use. As stress continues to build up these games
serve as a temporary escape from reality and, regardless of their ultimate goal, allows for
players to engage in an immersive experience that caters to their needs to be challenged,
receive extrinsic rewards and participate in a communal activity. This trend continues to
increase in direct correlation to the accessibility of technology. Gamification is a unique
societal trend in that it is a tangible tool and systemized process that actually enables
organizations to reform CR programs into strategies that align with all noted cultural
trends set to impact stakeholders. Though playing social games is not equivalent to
gamification for business use, the underlying principles of engaging players to complete a
goal remains the same. The increases in online social games have allowed stakeholders to
be more receptive of gamified activities for business. Because of its practicality, inherent
Figure 1 - Games as an Incentive ("Engagement Unleashed: Gamification for Business, Brands and
Loyalty" 2011)
27
alignment with cultural trends and potential to mitigate the shortcoming of CR,
gamification will be explored in depth to assess its strategic implication for the CR field.
CHAPTER 3: SAY HELLO TO GAMIFICATION
We’ve all seen it; coworkers in team meetings seemingly engrossed in their
smartphones and laptops scouring devices for long lost emails. About 10 minutes into the
meeting you catch a glimpse of their screen. Instead of a mundane Microsoft Outlook
interface you see vibrantly colored interactive games like Candy Crush, Farm Heroes
Saga or the ever-classic Angry Birds. Why is it that the gaming method of entertainment
and indulgence seems to command the attention of our esteemed colleagues? What makes
it more intriguing to level up in a fantasy game like Candy Crush than to keep attention
on corporate initiatives? Consider how humans are motivated. Best-selling author Robert
Lustig writes, “Our brains are wired for reward — it is the primary force behind human
survival. Reward is the reason to get up in the morning. If you take away reward, you
take away the reason to live. Kill the reward system, and you just might want to kill
yourself” (Lustig, 2013). A bold statement yes, but an accurate one. Humans by nature
strive for approval and affirmation in the form of rewards. Rewards effectively increase
the frequency to engage in an activity because it is provides pleasure to the psyche. This
reward-based motivation is exactly why “Mike in accounting” plays Angry Birds for 10
minutes of every 30-minute stretch of work. It provides visually stimulating interaction
and immediate feedback typically absent in conventional business operations and
initiatives.
The increasing acceptance of CR as a viable business operation, enhancements in
technology and shifts and culture laid the groundwork for the increasing acceptance of
gamification in a corporate environment. Gamification seemingly has no correlation to a
field like CR, but the self-empowering and rewarding nature of the tool and the cultural
climate create an “allowance” for it to be leveraged in a CR context and successfully
implemented to prompt positive returns on investment. To comprehensively understand
28
how gamification can strengthen the field of CR, gamification must be analyzed in detail
to grasp how the concept is applied. Information on the origin of gamification and the
critical events that shaped the industry is available in the Appendix.
3.1 What is Gamification and How Does it Work?
Industry Definitions:
“[Gamification] is the use of concepts from games and economics to change behavior.
It’s not just about making games; it’s about taking ideas from games and applying them
in ways that help drive change” (Zichermann 2013) - Gabe Zichermann, Gamification.Co
and Dopamine, Inc.
As with the definition of CR, the definition for gamification varies. However, in a
business context, gamification refers to systematic actions applied in a game framework
to encourage and incentivize a desirable behavior. As humans, it is in our nature to play,
challenge and respond positively to reward indicators of status and achievement. Gaming,
in a learning context “enables us to explore new things, to stretch our abilities, to learn
and adapt” (Swann 2012). Gamification uses key elements from traditional games, such
as progress bars, leaderboards, badges, etc. and applies them to things that are not games.
“It is about the psychology of games and people, the use of Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose
and Relatedness to engage and motivate people” (Marczewski 2013).
There are several frameworks about the gamification process and strategy.
Application of a framework will vary dependent on the nature of the project and available
resources but, there are certain gamification frameworks that are widely used cross-
industry when formulating a strategic approach to gamification implementation.
3.1.1 Gamification Frameworks
5D Gamification Framework:
Figure 2 - 5D Gamification
Framework (“Why
Gamification?” 2013)
29
Several gamification organizations subscribe to the 5D framework as a means of
strategizing their implementation initiatives. Depending on context and audience this
method may slightly vary in terms of the total number of components, however the
principles remain constant. For example, another iteration for this framework actually
includes 6D’s as a guide to gamification implementation:
1. Define business objectives
2. Describe your players
3. Delineate target behaviors
4. Devise activity loops
5. Don't forget the fun
6. Deploy appropriate tools (Rauch 2013).
When looking specifically at the 5D model as is, the first factor addressed is the “defining
of the problem.” It is critical to evaluate and assess what problem the organization is
attempting to solve through gamification. Why is gamification being considered and what
value will it present to the organization? What is the scope of the problem and what are
potential barriers to the implementation of a successful gamification strategy?
The second step of the 5D framework requires organizations to “determine their
goal.” This analysis forces organizations to think critically about business objectives and
how they will benefit the organization in the long-term. This process evaluates the
desired success metrics that will be used to track progress and to assess how gamification
will better enable that tracking process.
The third requirement prompts organizations to “identify their target behaviors.”
Corporations must investigate why they are targeting a particular segment, be it internal
or external, and identify what behaviors will/should be influenced by a gamification
system. “What will players do? How does this align with your objectives? How will you
measure success?” (Rauch 2013). How will gamification shift current behavior
tendencies to a more desirable state? Conducting research on game elements anticipated
to be the most effective within the target market are key to the new system’s success.
Organizations must then focus on describing the players in the gamified activity.
What are the demographic and psychographic activities of the targeted players? Using an
identification system such as Bartle’s player type, further explained in section 4.3, that
30
segments and assigns profile labels of “achievers, explorers, socialites and killers,”
(Bartle 1996) to inform predicted behavior allows the organization to anticipate the
efficacy of the intended gamification system. How will the profiled players interact
differently with the gamification system and how will all behavior be geared towards
achieving the same stated objectives and target behaviors? Conducting research that
clearly details the intrinsic motivators of the target population, external contributing
factors, and game elements anticipated to be the most effective within the target market
are key to the gamification system’s success.
Finally, based on the findings from the previous four steps, organizations are
prompted to design their own gamification strategy and experience. This brings the
conceptualized models to real-life scenarios with players and users. This final step
prompts organizations to factor desired Game Techniques, Mechanics and Dynamics and
activity loops to encourage engagements. Other questions to consider include: “How will
you onboard new players? How will players progress in your system? What type of
feedback will you provide? How will you keep experienced players motivated? Will you
use a web site, mobile app, or social network? Will you use intrinsic or extrinsic rewards?
Will you develop in house or hire a vendor? How will you deploy your system? How will
you measure its success?”(Rauch 2013).
Octalysis Framework - 8 Core Drives of Gamification
Founded by Yu-kai Chou, The Octalysis group integrates expertise in
gamification, creating engagement, human-focused design and behavioral economics to
drive ROI. Chou led the development of this integrated approach after noticing a trend
“that almost every game is fun because it appeals to certain Core Drives within us that
motivate us towards certain activities. [Octalysis] also noticed that different types of
game techniques push us forward differently: some in an inspiring and empowering way,
while some in a manipulative and obsessive manner” (Chou 2014). Though this
framework is primarily used by the Octalysis and is not an “industry standard,” its
ideology has commanded attention from industry experts and portions of the framework
have been subsequently adopted and applied in other methodologies.
31
Figure 3 - Octalysis: Gamification, Human Focused Design and 8 Core Drives (Chou 2014)
This framework identifies eight core drivers that profile the intrinsic motivators that
cause players to engage in a gamified system. The framework serves a profile of
behaviors so that systems can be optimized to reflect the motivations of each player type.
The level at which a gamification system focuses on each core drive inputs into an
aggregated “Octalysis score” that gives further context to the effectiveness and impact of
a particular gamified activity.
1) Epic Meaning & Calling: “Epic Meaning & Calling is the Core Drive where a
player believes that he is doing something greater than himself or he was
“chosen” to do something” (Chou 2014). Players influenced by this core drive can
be heavily invested in the activity as is evident by their assertion to assist in its
maintenance, innovate ideas to improve the system and brainstorm further
applications that extend by the current scope of the gamified platform. They are
intrinsically motivated by the benefits it lends to fellow players and community
members.
32
2) Development & Accomplishment: “Development & Accomplishment is the
internal drive of making progress, developing skills, and eventually overcoming
challenges. The word “challenge” here is very important, as a badge or trophy
without a challenge is not meaningful at all. This is also the core drive that is the
easiest to design for and coincidently is where most of the PBLs: points, badges,
leaderboards mostly focus on” (Chou 2014).
3) Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback: “Empowerment of Creativity &
Feedback is when users are engaged in a creative process where they have to
repeatedly figure things out and try different combinations” (Chou 2014). This
not only sparks creativity in users, but it also caters to the intrinsically pleasing
facet of receiving immediate feedback. Users highly value gamified experiences
that allows them to identify areas where they went wrong to learn how to later
alter that course of action. As users progress and the level of challenge increases,
there is a positive correlation in regard to enhanced creativity and appreciation of
feedback as well. “This is why playing with Legos…are fun in-and-of
themselves[; the] game-designer no longer needs to continuously add more
content to keep the activity fresh and engaging” (Chou 2014).
4) Ownership & Possession: When players feel as though they have a stake in
ownership, a higher level of engagement and quality assurance results because
they want to maintain and improve on their investment. “Besides being the major
core drive for wanting to accumulate wealth, this deals with many virtual goods or
virtual currencies within systems” (Chou 2014). Customization options that
provide an opportunity to create and personalize an experience such as an avatar
or badge also resonates with this group of users.
5) Social Influence & Relatedness: “This drive incorporates all the social elements
that drive people, including: mentorship, acceptance, social responses,
companionship, as well as competition and envy” (Chou 2014). This also
33
promotes friendly competition to outrank community members while
simultaneously providing a community platform around shared and central
experiences with which everyone can relate.
6) Scarcity & Impatience: “Many games have Appointment Dynamics within them
(come back 2 hours later to get your reward) – the fact that people can’t get
something right now motivates them to think about it all day long” (Chou 2014).
This technique to engage players directly contradicts prevalent trend of desiring
“instant gratification” in an age of impatience. If a player has earned a reward or
overcame an obstacles, naturally, it is expected in gaming environments that you
immediate reap the benefits of your harvest. Though there is a clear disparity
between the need for “instant gratification” and a delayed rewarding system, the
anticipation that builds in players actually encourages enhanced engagement,
prompt buzz and excitement.
7) Unpredictability & Curiosity: “Generally, this is a harmless drive of wanting to
find out what will happen next. If you don’t know what’s going to happen, your
brain is engaged and you think about it often. Many people watch movies or read
novels because of this drive. However, this drive is also the primary factor behind
gambling addiction. The very controversial Skinner Box experiments, where an
animal irrationally presses a lever frequently because of unpredictable results, are
exclusively referring to the core drive of Unpredictability & Curiosity, although
many have misunderstood it as the driver behind points, badges, and leaderboard
mechanics in general” (Chou 2014).
8) Loss & Avoidance: This core drive is based on players reacting in order to steer
away from negative results and/or consequences. The importance of the negative
results vary, however, it effects the gaming actions of players involved so that
they tend to be more hesitant and risk averse. Opportunity costs are also
considered in frame of reference that impacts behavior (Chou 2014).
34
When applying this framework and calculating the subsequent value score,
Octalysis takes into consideration both Left vs. Right Brain factors and White vs. Black
Hat factors. In the former category, imagine the framework in Figure through was
divided in half on a vertical line. The Core Drives on the right coincide with traditional
Right Brain characteristics such as socialization and creativity. The Core Drives on the
left coincide with traditional Left Brain
functions such as logic, reasoning and
ownership.
Now imagine dividing the
framework in Figure through in half on a
horizontal line. When considering the latter
White vs. Black Hat category, White Hat
gamification lies at the top with factors that
have more positive attributions such as
Accomplishment and Empowerment. The
bottom categories typically have more negative connotations, such as Unpredictability
and Scarcity and are given the Black Hat label.
To put all of the factors and calculate a score “you take how good the subject of
analysis is in each core drive, assign a number between 0-10 based on personal judgment,
data, and experience flows, and then square that number to get the Core Drive Score.
Once you add up all 8 Core Drive Scores, you will get your final Octalysis Score” (Chou
2014).
3.2 Gamification Criticisms
While there are several frameworks that can enable gamification success, there are
some opposing arguments to the incorporation of gamification in the business sector. One
basic criticism is with the actual name of the term “gamification.” “By putting the term
"game" first, it implies that the entire activity will become an engaging experience, when,
in reality, gamification typically uses only the least interesting part of a game - the
scoring system” (Nicholson 2012). Critics believe that the use of the term “game” to
simply gather points is deceptive and exploits players. The focus of “gamification” is not
Figure 4 - Octalysis: White Hat/Black Hat (Chou
2014)
35
primarily on the “game mechanics” backing the system, but instead on the business
objectives of the game and intended behavioral changes. These critics are typically
steeped in the field of “gaming” in the traditional sense and believe that a well-designed
gaming platform for the purpose of interactivity, rather than viewed as a means to
accomplish a corporate goal, will enable a greater engaged players.
With any new business trend comes the risk that companies, attempting to remain
current, will devise ill-conceived “solutions” that fail to illicit the same successful
solutions experienced by organizations that are experts or leveraged subject matter
expertise in the field. In regard to gamification, “success is highly dependent on
design. Gartner reported that 80% of gamified apps will fail by the end of 2014. In fact,
recent research showed that over US$50 billion was invested in Gamification programs in
2012, and most were unsuccessful due to the lack of use of intrinsic customer motivator”
(Goh 2014). Garter also projects that through 2018, only .01 percent of consumer mobile
apps will be considered a financial success ("Gartner Reveals 2014 Mobility Predictions"
2014). While gamified apps have a greater chance of succeeding when compared to apps
in general, creating a game whose sole purpose is to serve as a tallying system for
corporate goals will not result in employee or consumer engagement/ adoption or prompt
behavior change that impacts corporate profitability. While extrinsic motivators such as
badges and trophies do provide some stimulation and incentive, the core of a game’s
design should be centered on intrinsic motivators such as a players personal goals or
pillars such as social community belonging, recognition, mastery, competition etc.
“Cooperation trumps collaboration, gamification is hype, gaming fads come and go
and they will not be transformative” (Boyd 2013). Technology consultant Stowe Boyd
and similar critics believe that the majority of gamified platforms offer collaboration,
where users work toward a shared goal and incentive system, rather than the preferred
“cooperation,” where users can customize their long-term goals. According to Boyd, with
cooperation colleagues can work side-by-side but are not guided to work towards a
shared objective that may not reflect the individual objectives of all participants. While
not every platform takes this approach, many neglect that players in business
environments want to be able to customize their experience and their goals. Only
36
allowing players to engage in a collective manner with which they have no control is
countercultural and will result in disengagement.
Along with considering gamification a fad, critics, as well as supporters, have noted
that gamification has entered into the “trough of disillusionment” stage of the Gartner
Hype Cycle (Figure
5). “The Hype
cycle is a decision
aid that helps
boards, executive
teams, business
managers, CIOs, IT
leaders and IT
professionals to
discuss and
rationalize the
technology and
service investments
in front of them”
(Molenaar 2014). In recent years, gamification was considered to be at the peak of
inflated expectations stage with industry advocates prescribing multiple applications of
game mechanics to daily business operations. With high expectations and popularity
came a predictable period of the “misapplication of gamification” which led to failed
attempts of integration. These failed attempts have pushed the practice into the trough of
disillusionment stage. While this is a normal cycle for technological trends, it does mark
an opportunity as consumers of gamification are able to hone its uses to an appropriate
level. Consumers are in the stage where they are looking for gamification to create real
and long-term business value for organizations and to prove itself as a viable option for
sustainability and cost savings. “As organizations become more focused on business
objectives, gamification can help make the workplace more engaging and productive
because it changes the rules of engagement and inspires employees to change behaviors
Figure 5 – Gartner Hype Cycle (“Gartner's 2014 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies Maps the
Journey to Digital Business” 2014).
37
as a result” (Burke 2013). As organizations continue to measure results and develop
business cases for gamification, the trend will hasten its rise from the trough into the
“slope of enlightenment” and the “plateau of productivity” within the next five to 10
years.
CHAPTER 4: CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY USE OF GAMIFICATON
Just as with the field of CR, gamification faces criticisms about its usefulness and
methodology. However, the criticisms are mainly centered on the actual name of the term
and its label as a “fad,” when in actuality it is traveling along the natural technological
Hype Cycle into the trough of disillusionment stage. These criticisms aren’t systematic
flaws that could undercut gamification’s effectiveness in any way. For that reason, the
gamification industry, though small in the field of CR, continues to expand. “The
gamification market is currently worth more than $430 million annually and is expected
to reach $2.8 billion by 2016, according to M2 Research. As rampant adoption builds,
gamification is fast becoming a popular CR mechanism” (Bradley 2014). There is a clear
upward trend in the adoption of gamification in the corporate sector as a means to
increase employee engagement and virality of CR programs. Forbes estimates that by the
end of 2015, 40 percent of organizations listed in the Global 1000 organizations will use
gamification in some way as a means to transform a particular business operation.
“Gamification can help make the workplace more engaging and productive because it
changes the rules of engagement and inspires employees to change behaviors as a result”
(Burke 2013).
This thesis covered several industry strengths and weakness of both CR and
gamification. With the foundation laid, the thesis will now transition into a deeper
analysis that clearly delineates how gamification can strengthen CR in areas where it
struggles, use CR gamification examples of success and detail the strategic implications
and future trends within the growing field of CR gamification.
38
4.1 Gamification is the Solution to CR’s Lack of Accurate
Financial Measurement Tools
“‘If you can measure it you can improve it’ is an old business adage that is easily
applied to performance criteria such as manufacturing output levels or sales quotas. But,
how can you apply measurement metrics to the more subjective sciences of collaboration
and business success? Simple, the answer is ‘gamification’” (Burns 2012). When
considered in an integrated format, gamification enables consistent and accurate
measurement options for both financial and non-financial (i.e. behavioral changes,
customer conversion, etc.) key performance indicators (KPIs). When implementing
programs that don’t typically have perceivable financial returns such as corporate
volunteering, “go green” initiatives, or publicity campaigns, gamification, and the
tracking of players using the system, helps to directly assess this issue. “Gamification,
used properly, ties directly into a company's key business objectives to drive high-value
customer and employee behavior. These techniques can be used to help improve
efficiency. Gamification is, at its core, a data-based business strategy. First, you
determine what user behaviors align with your business objectives. Secondly, you
measure your existing performance around these behaviors. Once you implement your
gamification strategies you carefully track your ROI” (Bowers 2012).
As a data-based business strategy, tracking can take place for both consumer and
employee KPI’s based on the measures taken by a player’s profile in a gamification. For
instance, if a group of employees decides to track their “green” contributions by
switching to energy efficient light bulbs in an office, or going paperless, direct monetary
value in cost savings can be derived from this input. Cost savings ranging in amount of
money saved to train each employee or consumer on a particular cause is another
example of a reportable outcome with monetary and non-monetary implications. While
the KPIs measured may vary, the integration of output tracking for each individual user
allows for organizations to leverage the tracking systems within gamified systems, factor
in costs for implementation and determine accurate ROI values.
Profile accounts populated with player information allows organizations to track
the actions of users in a gamified system and depending on the KPI, track outputs or
39
Figure 6 – Half the Sky Movement (Bradley 2014)
behavioral changes. Take the gamified Half the Sky Movement, for example. “This game
was a multi-platform initiative against the oppression of women and girls worldwide”
(Bradley 2014). The Half
the Sky Movement, an
online extension rooted
from the Half the Sky:
Turning Oppression into
Opportunity for Women
Worldwide book written by
Nicholas Kristof and
Sheryl WuDunn, is considered one of the first Facebook games that offered direct virtual
to real-life translation. Creators made the missions and challenges in the game equivalent
to the cause principles of the movement and provided “real-world equivalent in donations
and social action opportunities” (Bradley 2014). Players move the protagonist, an
impoverished Indian mother named Radhika, through realistic scenarios ranging from
budgeting resources to buy medicine for her child and domestic violence to lessons of
empowerment. As she becomes more successful, she is able to travel to different
countries to educate and buy important material for her community such as fruit and
books. Players are able to donate to charities as they progress through the game buy
purchasing virtual goods that will allow them to complete their missions. Upon their
purchase of virtual goods, players were also given the option of purchasing real items for
a family in need. Not only did this game educate players on life-saving tactics to prevent
things like maternal mortality and to increase empowerment for women, it translated into
tangible fiscal income for the charitable causes. While many gamification efforts failed,
this was largely a success because players got to simulate the hardships and experiences
that women in real-life face on a daily basis. The game prompted them directly with that
correlation as players progressed. Their struggle through the game sparked empathy and
understanding that allowed players to more willingly donate money.
Results for this initiative led to 1.2 million players and raised over $500,000 in
less than six months. “The secret to a gamified CR campaign’s success is getting the
40
audience to step out of an online experience and take action in real life, according to Jon
Vidar, SVP at Ruder Finn and RFI Studios” (Bradley 2014). The success of this
gamified system shows that the ease at which both financial and non-financial KPIs can
be measured to calculate the ROI associated with gamification systems. Though KPIs
will vary, when goals are well defined and combined with business objectives when
designing the game, measurement increases in accuracy and value.
4.2 Gamification of CR Enables Companies to Target Top Performers and
Increase Business Efficiency
Gamification’s unique technological features enables its ability to be used both
internally and externally to achieve specific business objectives. Internal applications of
gamification typically contribute to increasing both employee engagement and
productivity. “A survey by Gallup found…that disengaged employees cost the U.S.
economy $450 billion to $550 billion annually” (Tandulwadikar 2013). Organizations
that adopt gamification have a prime opportunity to increase engagement through social
collaboration, clear defined objectives and interactive interfaces. Externally, “ ‘many
consumer brands charities have embraced games as a cost-effective method to engage
consumers, particularly Millennials and casual gamers,’ says Scott Pansky, cofounder
and senior partner, Allison+Partners” (Bradley 2014). External consumers can be
mobilized to participate in organization specific initiatives that range from crowdsourcing
to innovation and knowledge building/sharing. Whether the motivation be geared for
external or internal audiences, gamification’s technical capability offers major benefits:
• Real time feedback - As opposed to waiting for to receive some form of annual or
quarterly review form a manager, or waiting to see how you rank against fellow
employees or consumers, gamification enables real time feedback based on the
decision made within a gamified activity. This allows stakeholders proactively seek
out feedback rather than waiting on it to come pushed to them. “What gets measured
gets done. Gamification enables measurement for individuals, a team and a company
– in real time” (Roth 2012). Instant feedback also gives a sense of transparency and
removes confusion often associated with assessment periods.
41
• Clearly Defined Goals - “Gamification does not work in silos. For the best results,
leaders need to embed the organization’s core objectives and values into the
gamification effort” (Tandulwadikar 2013). Gamified activities that maintain clear
performance goals, whether player or leader generated, will allow players to have a
clear perspective of what needs to be accomplished. The key metrics for a gamified
activity should be centered on areas that need to be improved; identifying these key
areas allows for organizations to define where they desire to see resulting business
value as well as players to be privy to the information and goals as well.
• Identifying Top- Performers - “A vital benefit of gamifying business is that it helps
companies identify their future stars and leaders. Rather than just motivating the
disengaged, gamification provides tools for motivated workers to contribute and be
recognized” (Eyal 2014). Gamified activities quickly identifying top performers is
mutually beneficial to the organization as well as players. For organizations, top-
performers can be further incentivized to increase their output and serve as examples
of how engagement is adequately rewarded. The behavior patterns and characteristics
of a group of top-performers can be studied and built into various operations in order
to replicate this exemplary behavior and subsequently enhance overall employee
productivity, and ultimately organization profits. For players of the gamified
activities, ranking above fellow competitors or receiving material and non-material
incentives such as badges, trophies, leaderboard rankings or a gift card provides
extrinsic motivators to improve performance. This enables players to tailor their
desired amount of involvement and be more engaged in progressing toward their own
accomplishment goals.
These gamification elements allow for organizations to monitor what stakeholders are
most active in achieving goals as well as addresses the need for players to receive
constant, customized feedback on their performance. Individual performance and
personal attachment to a CR initiative are aspects that typically organizations struggle to
accomplish, but gamification, paired with defined goals and outcomes, allows for
increased efficiency and stakeholder engagement.
42
Detailed examples of how gamification allows for stakeholder profiling is available in
Appendix G.
4.3 Gamification of CR Aligns Psychological and Cultural Trends and
Motivations with Business Goals
“One of the most engaging activities a person will ever experience is a video
game, some may think this only applies to those under a certain age however this isn’t the
case. ALL brains respond to the stimuli found in a well-designed computer game. Many
organizations have already found ways to make gaming work for them, even if it’s not in
the traditional sense” ("Employee Engagement through Gamification" 2013). From a
scientific perspective, gamification’s effectiveness can directly be linked to brain
plasticity. As the brain is continually challenged and forced to re-build and strategize
with every gaming scenario, players become adept at “detecting fine details, tracking the
movement of objects, paying attention, making decisions, understanding and
manipulating multimedia, and many other behaviors that can be useful in the workforce’”
("Employee Engagement through Gamification" 2013).
Human-focused gamification systems prompt stakeholders to engage with the
Corporate Responsibility goals of the organization by enabling stakeholders to
personalize and customize their desired level of interaction, challenge fellow competitors,
innovate ways to contribute and apply the principles to their daily lives. “The
psychological drivers that have made gamification the hottest trend in conventional
marketing apply equally to promoting sustainability. People play games because of the
fundamental need to get challenged, be social and achieve recognition. The motivation is
largely emotional. Similarly, the quest for sustainability can be seen as a game in which
players strive to create a better world in order to feel better about themselves. The task is
challenging; it requires a lifestyle change. The action is social; it involves the community.
The reward is recognition; it signals leaders” (Kamal 2012).
At the most basic level, gamification caters to the need for humans to be challenged
and engage in competition and game play. Gamification uses incentives to both
encourage desired behavior as well as discourage unwanted behavior using various game
mechanics such as badges, trophies or leaderboards. In recent years, with the growing
43
acceptance of the gaming experience as well as the advent of new technology platforms,
“people have accepted game mechanics in every aspect of their lives. As a result,
“gamification” is becoming a powerful tool through which organizations teach, persuade,
engage and motivate people” (“Gamification 101: An Introduction to Game Dynamics”
2012).
Motivation is described as a person’s decision to interact or engage with an activity
in accordance with their level of effort in completing the activity. CR Gamification
leverages two of determining factors for motivation: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
motivation. Intrinsic motivation prompts players to engage in a gamified activity because
it offers personal value while extrinsic motivation prompts engagement in order to earn a
reward, status or avoid negative action (i.e. badges, trophies, leaderboards). Because
gamification initiatives can be personalized by the players and reflect their own personal
goals in the spectrum of a larger corporate initiative, players can experience the gamified
activity as an intrinsic motivator. The level of public status and completion and
leaderboard captures the interest of players extrinsically motivated. Gamification’s ability
to leverage both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation tactics enables its ability to enhance
both employee and consumer engagement and increase progression toward desired goals.
Corporate Responsibility is currently at a peak period where it is viewed as an
expectation and standard business practice for all organizations that wish to attract and
retain competitive employees as well as consumers. Because of its increased notoriety,
organizations have increasingly centralized Corporate Responsibility programs that only
push top-down corporate messaging as opposed to “pulling” innovation and causes from
stakeholders to champion. The extent of its cross-industry adoption has enable
organizations to centralize and streamline CR efforts that doe not always directly reflect
the causes championed by its stakeholders. While this strategic approach to Corporate
Responsibility enables organizations to stay within scope, the programs are increasingly
only reflective of the corporate brand and not of the causes championed by the individual
employees who enable the firm to function or consumers who patronize the organization.
This disparity gives rise to an opportunity to allow the gamification solution to bridge the
44
gap between the strategic programs of a corporation and the concerns championed by
stakeholders.
Gamification initiatives that have a “Human-Focused Design,” as opposed to
“Function-Focused Design” are optimized for human motivation in a system, as opposed
to pure efficiency” (Chou,. "Octalysis: Complete Gamification Framework"). Humans
are also driven by the need for rewards, status, achievement, self-expression, competition
and altruism. These desires are applicable across generations, demographics,
psychographics, cultures, and genders. Depending on the platform used, gamification can
cater each of these
human desires that
prompt our actions
and motivations
(Figure 7).
Figure 7 - Bunchball
Human Desire Matrix
(“Gamification 101: An
Introduction to Game
Dynamics” 2012).
4.4 Gamification of CR Provides Stakeholders with Aesthetic and Viral Programs
“Visuals are directly related to the aesthetics and how well other gamification
design elements, like story and narrative, work. Through visual elements they allow the
player to better immerse in the game and bring them into the “right” mood” (“Aethetics”
2013). Getting players in the “right mood” to interact with gamified platform is similar
to the process of getting stakeholders in the “right mood” to engage with CR programs.
As indicated in the cultural trends, stakeholders are increasingly digesting information
visually. Clear graphics and user-centric interfaces increase the likelihood that
stakeholders will not only engage with the gamified platforms but also, serve as an
ambassador for the organization and share its merits via word-of-mouth or online social
media and forums. Gamification platforms should arrange the graphics and content in a
digestible format so as not to overwhelm users. There are two major theories used when
designing gamification platforms that are optimal to players:
45
• The Cascading Information Theory – “The theory that information should
be released in the minimum possible snippets to gain the appropriate level
of understanding at each point during a game narrative” (Reeve 2014).
• The Flow Theory – a concept that states that activities are put in a certain
order based on difficulty and skill ability.
“Games have evolved as an artistic form, offering sensory experience in a game
that is very stimulating and aesthetically appealing. When presented as a well-designed
game, social interdependence, and the sensory experience of games can make them very
effective and engaging. Without the game aesthetic, players may choose not to engage”
(Dubbels 2013). Gamified initiatives should complement the objective of the goal with a
well-designed platform that does not overwhelm players with too much information
about the topic and also leverages visuals to shape the tone and immersive experience of
the game. Gamified platforms that are aesthetically pleasing or offer a unique
functionality become a source of pride for a player and thus, a shareable form of content
that can increase engagement and exposure for a particular CR program.
4.5 Gamification of CR Enables Scalable Campaigns and Impact
“Ubiquitous mobile devices, wireless technology, wearables, sensors, big data and
cloud computing have made gamification affordable and scalable in recent years” (Post
2014), Forbes cites that with 1.6 billion smart phones in use, organization employees are
two to five times more likely to access corporate apps on their phone than they are on
their PC. This trend indicates that there is an ability to scale the gamification to various
technology platforms so that they can be more easily integrated and personalized by
players. Scaling down to a mobile platform allows organizations to engage stakeholders
during wait and “down” times.
Gamification platforms also allow for organizations that are typically regionally
decentralized to unite and work toward a shared goal for the betterment of the global
community. “Globalization is now the norm for many enterprises. Large organizations
can have offices in 40+ countries and earn over 50% of their revenue outside their home
country. Many corporations struggle to unite and align their employees under one
46
mission and set of core values. Technology has no borders, and the opportunities to
coordinate a workforce are limitless” ("Employee Engagement: Why Technology Is Most
Effective” 2014).
CHAPTER 5: GAMIFIED CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY IN
PRACTICE - CASE STUDIES: AT&T’s “Do One Thing” and IBM “Innov8”
5.1 Gamification Case Study - AT&T Do One Thing
Overview
Innovative sustainability company Saatchi & Saatchi S partnered with AT&T to
develop a CR initiative what would prompt both employees and consumers to positively
shift their behavior to foster a corporate culture of sustainability. Saatchi & Saatchi S is
the sustainability standalone branch of the creative media agency Saatchi & Saatchi.
Their goal is to make “sustainability irresistible” through strategy, engagement and
communication (Longsworth 2012). AT&T is based in Texas but has a presence in 225
countries and runs the largest Wi-Fi network in the US (Gonzalez 2013).
The CR program was designed for all departments in AT&T but spearheaded by
AT&T’s Citizenship & Sustainability team. The partnership created an “engagement and
communications platform called Do One
Thing (DOT), an invitation to employees to
think about their daily actions and pick one
change they can make that will have a
positive impact on themselves, their
community and/or the company” (Anderson
2012). Rolled out in May 2011, the purpose
of the campaign was to empower both
employees and consumers to implement at least one positive behavior change that would
benefit the community or the environment and then, to document the impact of these
actions through the gamified DOT interface. Simple actions such as recycling, turning off
computer screens, wellness initiatives and paperless billing as well as any cause that an
Figure 8 - Do One Thing Marketing Sample (“Do One
Thing 2013 Accomplishments” 2014).
47
employee wanted to champion were encouraged and reflected in the overall corporate
responsibility goals of AT&T. “As employees opt to DOT, they received merits, badges
and are able to compare their progress with other team members” (Anderson 2012).
DOTspot was the branded name of the gamified website that featured social interaction,
leaderboards, badges and trophies. The website allowed for employees to digitally tally
their CR DOT actions into an impact score that further factored into a final ROI
calculation for the organization as a whole. Because AT&T is not inherently related to a
CR program based on its primary business, the organization was able to mold this
initiative to best fit the needs of its employees.
AT&T sought to increase internal awareness of their innovative commitment to
social and environmental responsibility and to create a simple way for interested
employees to join in sustainability efforts on a personal level DOT. By engaging,
empowering and encouraging consumers and employees to champion their own CR
campaign, the collective efforts of each individual activity molded the CR direction for
the corporate brand as a whole and increased the likelihood of employees to share their
experiences publicly. Empowered employees become ambassadors for an organization
and in the DOT case, employees actively
recruited both outside and inside of the
organization for others to help in
achieving personalized CR goals that
were also supported and championed by
their organization. “The simplicity of
DOT allows it to stir up a little counter
programming while respecting the
boundaries of your company’s current
culture” (Anderson 2012). In addition to the DOT campaign’s dedicated platform,
AT&T leveraged an existing internal website, The Innovation Pipeline (TIP), so
employees could submit / crowdsource potential CR initiatives to receive funding from
AT&T leadership.
Figure 9 – Do One Thing Marketing Sample (Moeger )
48
AT&T is a large company and to reach its 240,000 employees, Saatchi & Saatchi
S and AT&T created a streamlined internal communications network to pilot the program
and communicate changes and expected next steps. In concert with the online gamified
platform, the team used as a phased approach and created regionally based “DOT pilots
nationwide to test employee engagement strategies, messaging efficacy, and scalability in
a wide range of business environments, including offices, call centers, field operations,
and retail stores” ("Our Irresistible Clients." 2013). The company was able to spark
widespread adoption by mobilizing entire teams behind DOTs or “Team DOTs.” By the
end of 2013 there were 689 Dot teams and nearly 1,140 employees had volunteered to
become "Dot connectors", leaders who choose a Dot activity to share across the company
("Our Irresistible Clients." 2013).
Results
AT&T was able to quickly realize results through the popularity of their physical
DOT teams. As the success of the program was consistently measured on the internal
gamification platform, the DOTspot Impact Calculator, more than “24,000 employees
[including 859 DOT teams] voluntarily chose, [collaborated] and tracked more than
40,000 DOTs” ("Engaging Employees in Their Communities" 2014). One of the major
benefits from the DOT campaign was AT&T’s ability to quickly identify and incentivize
its top CR performers. These DOT champions received nationwide publicity in traditional
and online media outlets. This extrinsic recognition perfectly integrated with the intrinsic
motivators that initially prompted the DOT champions to pursue their individual CR
initiatives.
To date, DOT teams and individual initiatives can be found in more than 1,000
cities in the US 25 countries abroad (Gonzalez 2013). At one of the peak times for the
program in third quarter 2012, individual employees reporting DOTs spiked 35%, to
12,502 ("2013 CSR Awards: Workplace Innovation - PR News" 2013).
49
Gamification has allowed AT&T to accurately measure the ROI realized as a
result of the CR efforts. One such success story marked an increase in the involvement in
paperless billing from 1% to 20% over a three-month period, which could be directly
attributed to $700,000 in annual savings ("Our
Irresistible Clients." 2013). The actions of each
unique player could be tracked and cost savings
from these actions closely monitored and measured
to show the effects of successful integration of
gamification and CR. Some of the other KPIs
measured by the DOT gamification platform
resulted in saving “252 thousand pounds of trash
from entering landfills, saved nearly 7.1 million
gallons of water, and collectively lost more than 7100 pounds of weight to date. The
ultimate success will be when the next great sustainability idea is born from someone’s
DOT, not from the corporate tower. That’s when cultural change will really start to take
hold” ("Our Irresistible Clients." 2013).
For their innovation and success, both Saatchi & Saatchi S and AT&T received
media publicity and awards including the 2013 CR Award for Workplace Innovation
presented by PR News. DOT’s success allowed for AT&T to create a corporate brand
identity around its sustainability initiatives. In addition to dedicated website, AT&T
tweets from the Twitter name @ConnectToGood in order to communicate directly with
the public about their citizenship and sustainability initiatives ("2013 CSR Awards:
Workplace Innovation - PR News" 2013).
Best Practices from AT&T’s Campaign
From it’s campaign, the AT&T team found that there are simple rules to abide by
to increase the likelihood of success: be authentic and invite innovation, highlight
employee stories, make it matter to the business, keep it simple and fun and emphasize
team collective impact. Encourage employees to realize that action starts on a personal
level but more is accomplished through collective action. “As part of AT&T’s [gamified]
Figure 10 - Do One Thing Marketing Sample
(Heidt )
50
internal DOT website, employees can start, manage and track a wide range of Team
DOTs; currently, more than 300 teams across the company are amplifying their impacts.
One DOT team in Lancaster, TX started recycling empty cardboard boxes at the
warehouse where they worked; so far, they’ve diverted 159,156 lbs of loose cardboard
and 30,668 lbs of plastic from landfills, and created a $17,500 annual cost savings for
AT&T by decreasing trash pickups. Now that’s collective impact” (Anderson 2012).
5.2 Serious Games Case Study - IBM INNOV8
Overview
IBM is best known as being an international technology and consulting
organization specializing in strategic solutions that leverage both business processes and
technology. With more than 430,000 employees and $99.75 billion in sales, IBM is a
leading organization that has acquired extensive expertise in providing technology-driven
solutions (Barinka 2015). The organization’s extension into the gamification industry
may not be out of scope, but its application of the practice introduces an innovative way
in which to leverage CR initiatives as profit-drivers.
IBM developed a game that serves as a BPM (Business Process Management)
simulator called Innov8. As a result of its success, detailed below, the organization
expanded the line of B2B serious games to include that has spawned several B2B
products, including City Manager, a simulator aimed at municipal executives. Innov8 has
turned into a serious-game CR program IBM (Zichermann,"Beyond the Hype: 5 Ways
That Big Companies Are Using Gamification," 2013). IBM originally designed Innov8
as a 3-D simulation game to be used as an academic tool to teach applicable business and
managerial skills to students as well as business professionals looking for a training
program (Burke 2009). As a serious game, this system allows for complete immersion
into a simulated world, much like the Sims, social game, in which players are presented
with a variety of business scenarios and prompted to make strategic decisions for the
good of their organizations. One simulation scenario teaches players to reduce or
eliminate waste while managing a "green" supply chain. Based on advanced commercial
gaming technologies, Innov8 players receive immediate feedback of the impact of their
51
individual decisions are able to visualize how technology and business strategies can
affect an organization's performance through an aesthetically pleasing and immersive
interface (Lali 2008).
The main purpose of the game is to “level-up your skills and discover how to
make our Planet smarter, revolutionize industries and solve real-world business,
environmental and logistical problems”
("Examples of Commercial Outcomes of Serious
Games" 2014). The approach of using a serious-
game was leveraged based on the expertise of
technology expert Phaedra Boinodiris as well as
research that cited that a “great lecture can
improve learning by 17% but serious games
can improve learning by 108%” ("INNOV8
2.0 Full Academic Edition"). Executives, academics and students alike supported the
game as an effective tool in training players to make ethical and strategic business
decisions similar to what is required in a real-world application. Three of the newest
platform scenarios include:
• “'Green' Supply Chain: Players evaluate a traditional supply chain model and are
tasked with reducing a fictional company's carbon footprint.
• Efficient Traffic Flow: Players
evaluate existing traffic patterns and
re-route traffic based on sensors that
alert the player to disruptions such as
accidents and roadway congestion.
• Call Center Customer Service: Using
a call center environment, players
develop more efficient ways to
respond to customers” ("IBM
"Serious Game" Provides Training to Tackle Global Business Challenges" 2009).
Figure 11 – IBM Innov8 Example ("CityOne Game")
Figure 12 - IBM Innov8 Example (Burke 2009)
52
The business simulations are free for use and represent a CR campaign for IBM because
it trains players to apply a Service Oriented Architecture approach before committing
resources to a solution. The gaming platform allows for global collaborations with
players to enable community and virtual teams that can address business process issues
and potential solutions. Included are also features that allow players to select their avatar
and to interact with heroes and villains. The academic version of the business simulation
is free to Professors and students registered with IBM’s Academic Initiative (Lali 2008).
Results
Within five months the ROI received from the first iteration of IBM’s Innov8:
CityOne resulted in 100x the investment ("Examples of Commercial Outcomes of
Serious Games" 2014). One of the key features of the game was the creation of unique
profiles for each player that allowed IBM to track conversions to purchases as well as
pinpoint the root of lead generated. The IBM players who used the serious game sparked
an increase in sales and with its expanded use at over 1,000 institutions to teach BPM,
Innov8 has become the organizations highest lead generator. What began as a CR
campaign quickly transitioned into a viable business option for IBM as business partners
began to petition the organization to personal Innov8 simulations for their customers.
“‘This speaks to the power of selling by educating as well as the quality of the game
Figure 13 - IBM Innov8 Example ("CityOne Game")
53
itself. People can smell chocolate broccoli from a mile away,’ so even educational games
have to be extremely well crafted” (Neisser 2010).
Best Practices (Phaedra Boinodiris, IBM Innov8 Creator, Interview)
Four key points were extracted from the IBM Innov8 gamification project: partner with
professionals, start with low hanging fruit, build from success and “don’t sell chocolate
broccoli” (Neisser 2010). Phaedra Boindiris, Innov8’s creator, advised to begin the
initiative by capturing the “low hanging fruit,” the target markets that can easily and
immediately benefit from the gamification product. “Once Innov8 was produced, it was
quickly adopted and lauded by teachers, students and the press. ‘We took something that
was highly technical and made it more intuitive,’ added Phaedra. ‘Students were the low
hanging fruit but they also represented future business opportunity,’ which would
eventually help to get Business Process Management software adopted by more and more
companies” (Neisser 2010). The next step is to expand on the successful prototype, add
additional desirable features to enhance the player experience and to truthful market the
uses of the program. Phaedra advocates for gamification systems not to “sell chocolate
broccoli.” “This speaks to the power of selling by educating as well as the quality of the
game itself. This insight is a truth for all such marketing as service programs, if the
experience isn’t top notch, the customer or prospect simply won’t engage. On the other
hand, if the experience is rich and educational, there is simply no better way to sell”
(Neisser 2010).
CHAPTER 6: IMPLICATIONS AND BARRIERS FOR CR
GAMIFICATION AND THE FUTURE OF CR GAMIFICATION AND
STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS
There are many compelling cases that depict the successful implementation of CR
gamification in terms of financial and non-financial ROI realized. However, some
organizations will refuse to accept the relevance of either gamification or CR while
others may face barriers when attempting to enter the industry. There are key strategic
implications to consider before an organization embarks on a CR gamification campaign.
54
6.1 Cost
Multiple factors are considered in the pricing of a gamification project and the
amount of money spent is typically directly correlated with the level of quality and
functionality within a platform. “Many of these corporate games require the presentation
of rewards that, if fully exploited, would be cost-negative for the enterprises” (Anderson,
"Main Findings: Getting into the Gamification?”, 2012). While organizations may recoup
the cost of implementation in realized cost savings, some organizations are unable to
invest the initial research and development funds necessary to start an integrated, digital
gamification platform. Cost considerations can include consulting fees, upgrade and
maintenance costs, technology licensing, development fees, accommodations for
customization and large amounts of players, software integration. Depending on the size
and complexity of project there is variation in potential costs. Some projects, ranging
from physical games to simple digital apps, can fall under $10,000 for total development.
On the extreme end, others that are fully immersive, leverage 3D graphics or have to
accommodate large populations can cost up to $250,000 ("Gamification Cost Ranges”
2014). Organizations must carefully define what system is necessary for their
stakeholders to achieve their personalized objected and what behavior should be
impacted and/or changed. From this information, a gamified platform within a reasonable
scope should be pursued.
6.2 Lack of Expertise and Executive Support
“Anyone who is doing gamification knows that for many instances, gamification
can have a short shelf life, depending on the way you are doing it and the reason you are
doing it. Simple systems that offer Points, Badges and Leaderboards are often cited as
having very short life spans” (Marczewski 2014). While organizations may desire to
implement a CR gamification, they may lack leadership or employees who have the
expertise to recognize its need or have the ability to maintain the system as a long-term
sustainability solution. In the short-term an impactful system is implemented however
without continuous innovation and introduction of new gaming aspects, engagement with
the platform will decrease if experts aren’t leveraged. Employees may also seem
55
burdened by the addition of another administrative task rather than recognizing the
gamification platform as an engaging and customizable experience.
“Executive support is paramount in keeping projects on track and achieving project
success” ("3 Must Haves to Ensure Critical Projects Succeed" 2013). While stakeholders
do enjoy autonomy in establishing their own personal goals and customizing user
experiences, it is also important to demonstrate that there is executive support behind
these collective actions. If executive support is lacking, the project will be at greater risk
for failure due to lack of marketing, funding, and affirmation. Organizations need to
ensure that before investing, key executives are in agreement with the short- and long-
term benefits of the implementation of CR gamification and that it is treated like a long-
term sustainable solution.
6.3 Incompatible Stakeholder Groups
“It is incredibly impactful to reward agents for high performance and the
completion of development tasks. Imagine how much more impactful it would be if these
development plans were custom-tailored to each agent and specifically targeted the
performance metrics you want to reward” (Wolf 2014). It is difficult to custom tailor
rewards for each variation of player on a gamified system. Some players will be chronic
under achievers or uninterested in using the system. In some cases, the demographics of
an organization’s stakeholders may not be accepting of gamification options.
Organizations who try to force the CR gamification solution where it is not conducive
will fail to realize the benefits and cost savings associated with the system as stakeholders
will become bitter towards the system.
6.4 Professional Services and Industry Collaboration
“In the business world, gamification has typically leveraged badges, points and
leaderboards in the hopes of engaging people. This falls far short of the potential of what
gamification can do for businesses. On one end of the spectrum, businesses can use game
design techniques in ways that are not overtly game-like to fully engage customers,
partners, and employees. When well implemented, gamification can transform a work
culture by cultivating deep emotional connections, high levels of active participation, and
long-term relationships that drive business value. On the other end of the spectrum,
businesses can utilize strategy games, simulation games, and role-playing games as
means to teach, drive operational efficiencies, and innovate” (Boinodiris 2014).
56
As the fields of both corporate responsibility and gamification continue to grow in
popularity independently and in integration, organizations specializing in CR
gamification are experiencing increasing growth. There are many industry start-ups and
established organizations who have ventured into the field of CR gamification including
Badgeville, IBM, Bunchball, Causecast and Keas. One particular CR game mechanics
organization, WeSpire, is quickly growing its business offerings and expertise as an
industry leader in the field of CR game mechanics.
In an interview, Sarah Finnie Robinson, Founding Partner of WeSpire, explained
their organization was birthed from the mind of CEO Susan Hunt who was seeking a way
in which to capture and measure the impact of everyday socially responsible actions in
conjunction with larger business goals. Gaining inspiration from “LEED” standards and
regulations, Hunt believed that the same standard of measurement could become a viable
industry within CR that was mutually meaningful to both employees and corporations.
Robinson says the proprietary measurement platform used by the organization enables
clients to leverage CR game mechanics within their respective organizations to produce
financial and non-financial ROI and is the key on why organizations including The Walt
Disney Company, eBay, MGM, Time Warner Cable and Sony partner with WeSpire
(Robinson 2015).
Robinson notes that large companies are increasingly seeing the usefulness of CR
game mechanics in engaging employees
because of their desire to maintain
autonomy within and personalization
within a group. While everyone desires to
belong to a community, there is also a
desire stakeholders to own their
contribution to a CR program. WeSpire
allows for more than 1,200 “projects” to
be posted on their platforms. Projects are a
conglomeration of stakeholder, WeSpire and client suggestions of ways to engage in
Figure 14 –WeSpire Platform Example (“Engage the Power
of Your Employees with WeSpire” 2014).
57
daily CR activities. Top-performers can be
filtered by region, job type, overall points,
cost savings, etc. This allows WeSpire
clients to target the top performers in their
organizations so that they can receive
further incentives. Some of the most
effective campaigns have been those
suggested and championed by the actual
stakeholders. The stakeholder feedback
feature as well as the use of leaderboards, badges, trophies and tangible rewards enables
employees to remain engaged with the CR campaign as they are consistently embarking
on different challenges, engaging in competition and maintaining autonomy over their
individual goals. This engagement is also enabled by mobile technology. It is a
convenience that allows stakeholders to interact with the organization on their personal
time and in the way they desire to tailor their involvement (Robinson 2015).
WeSpire holds monthly client calls that allows for their clientele to benchmark CR
gamification ideas and to tailor their campaigns to their specific organization and
platforms. This collaborative meeting quickly turns into a Think Tank in which
organizations, who may compete in other areas, are able to learn from each other’s
campaigns and conduct “what-if” scenarios if similar actions were taken at their
individual organization. Clients also benefit from WeSpire’s solutions because of its
ability to deliver concrete ROI. ROI measures monitored range from cost savings, funds
raised, revenue increased, energy efficiency, water sustainability, etc. Because of the
tangible measures of ROI, 99 percent of WeSpire clients choose to renew their contracts
with the organization. Though there is debate about the validity of game mechanics used
within business organizations, Robinson states that their organizations attract clients
willing to invest in the industry and who are patient in development in order to reap long-
term results. In regard to individual employees who may be disengaged, the WeSpire
platforms allow for stakeholders who don’t desire to engage in competition to instead
journey on a CR path of self-enlightenment and knowledge building (Robinson 2015).
Figure 15 - WeSpire Platform Example (“Engage the
Power of Your Employees with WeSpire” 2014).
58
This means that not all stakeholders need to compete with leaderboards or teams. They
are able to abstain from that element and simply track their own CR behavior at their
discretion.
WeSpire can be seen as a representative organization for the game mechanics
industry. While the methodology and tactics
of each organization may differ, the main
goal of each organization is to leverage
game mechanics to shift stakeholder
behavior toward achieving positive socially
responsible goals that also impacts the
financial ROI of an organization. As
gamification emerges from the “trough of
disillusionment,” an increase in innovation
and start-ups specializing in the topic will arise and breadth of professional service
offerings will evolve to meet increasingly niche needs within the CR gamification
industry.
When asked about the coming trends that will determine the future of CR game
mechanics/ gamification, Robinson indicates that using player data in the context of Big
Data is fertile industry for opportunity.
6.5 Big Data and ROI
“Technology has taken over how we communicate, socialize, work and play. Smart
businesses are capturing that data, analyzing it and then using those insights to motivate
employees – and partners and customers, too. Today’s sophisticated analytics provide
actionable insights, new realizations that you can use to fuel active, meaningful and
sustained participation” (Paharia 2013) Big data refers to the extensive amount of
complex data sets generated and collected on a daily basis. Because of its volume,
frequency and fragmentation, big data is difficult to analyze and synthesize into usable
information for every day application. However, with more data and consistent direction,
accurate analysis increases. Most technology platforms require a log-in of some type that
gives organizations access to large amounts of personal and behavioral data. As
Figure 16 - WeSpire Platform Example (“Engage the
Power of Your Employees with WeSpire” 2014).
59
stakeholders engage with gamification platforms, profile data can inform behavior habits,
causes of concern and motivations that can be considered when selecting CR
gamification strategies and predicting performance.
Along with the use of big data comes the question of whether an organization can
use analysis of stakeholder behaviors, decision making patterns, interests, behavioral,
trends, cultural trends, etc. to influence and direct the actions of stakeholders/players on
the backend of gamification platforms. After studying the behavioral patterns of
individual for an extended amount of time it becomes easy to predict behaviors,
responses and develop heuristics on how to manipulate a person into behaving in a
certain way. If analyzed for this purpose, it is possible for organizations to indeed
anticipate the actions of stakeholders and guide them into pursuing certain CR goals that
seemingly are chosen autonomously but actually are designed for the sole purpose of the
profitability of the organization as a while. The rising trend of big data integration also
provides context to the shift of the gamification industry into what is known as
“gamification 3.0.”
6.6 Gamification 3.0
“’Gamification 3.0’ refers to the ecosystem that provides an intimate, personalized
experience to users who are part of a behavior-change initiative” (Gadiyar 2014). The
purpose of the 3.0 iteration is to leverage big data along with cultural, psychological and
behavioral trends to provide a higher contextualized and customized understanding of
players as well as the user experience for players. This will enable organizations to
identify the long-term intrinsic motivators to better prompt change in stakeholders.
Figure 17 -
Gamification 3.0
Evolution -
(Gadiyar 2014).
60
Gamification 3.0 ties closely with the Loyalty 3.0 framework developed by Bunchball
founder Rajat Paharia in his book “Loyalty 3.0: How to Revolutionize Customer and
Employee Engagement with Big Data and Gamification.” Paharia notes that Loyalty 3.0
has evolved to include the latest motivational research and big data. “Loyalty 3.0 marries
interaction design, psychology, and data analysis to enable personalized challenges,
social competition, group collaboration, and meaningful rewards that truly motivate and
engage. This leads to more sales, stronger collaboration, better ROI, deeper loyalty,
higher customer satisfaction and more” (Paharia 2013). He continues to state the root
causes of motivations drives engagement, big data informs motivation behavior, and
gamifiication enables Loyalty 3.0 platforms. Both Loyalty and Gamification 3.0 are the
refined integration of game mechanics, with big data, social media, science and
behavioral analytics that enable hyper-personalization for CR gamification programs.
This integration also values an increase in crowd sourced solutions for CR. “As
powerful as computers are, nothing matches the intuition, pattern-matching skills, and
leaps of insight that humans are capable of when it comes to solving problems. When it
comes to solving big problems, it can take a lot of people trying many different scenarios
to uncover the right solution (Boinodiris 2011).
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
While there are still active critics who campaign against the usefulness of Corporate
Responsibility in a business environment, it is clear that the current economic climate and
cultural trends have structured an environment where the CR gamification programs used
by organizations will flourish, if implemented strategically. This does not mean that
every organization with a CR plan will survive. However, it does imply that
organizations who are able to strike a balance between corporate CR goals and
stakeholder CR goals will be more efficient in earning ROI on their investment. In the
past, measuring this ROI would have resulted in inconsistent measures that did not
always provide applicable financial KPIs to justify a program. Gamification directly
addresses this issue and enables corporations to leverage technology in the CR industry to
61
track cost savings, stakeholder involvement, lead generation, etc. Though CR
gamification is considered a niche market, this industry has broad applications. Cultural
trends indicate the stakeholders are increasing in their distrust of “big business” as well as
their desire to be autonomous in their decision-making. Stakeholders want to be rewarded
for the levels of participation they choose and expect that their opinions and concerns be
directly reflected in the goals set forth by the organizations they represent. This gap
between company and stakeholder motivations provides an opportunistic void. CR is an
industry that is ever shifting and in coming years, will need to factor in societal shifts.
Organizations who will successfully gain a competitive advantage will:
1. Adapt their current strategies to adapt to the shifting cultural changes to reflect a
more individualized approach and,
2. Implement measurement systems in CR programs that efficiently track direct
financial ROI, stakeholder engagement and contributions, behavior change, cause
awareness, etc.
Organizations do not have to take extreme measures and eradicate current centralized
CR procedures, however, in order to stay competitive and increase the ability to earn and
measure impactful ROI, gamified platforms should be implemented as a solution to
engage and empower stakeholders. “While helping nonprofits and entrepreneurs in
emerging markets is a noble and worthwhile objective, it’s the further development of top
talent and increase in brand reputation that bring additional direct and tangible rewards.
The concept of [CR] changes how an organization engages its employees and develops
human potential. It provides leadership and professional development opportunities,
while giving employees a chance to participate in a social cause that will make their work
more meaningful to them” (Dutton 2014).
Technology continues to evolve and present new opportunities for application. CR is
typically an industry that remain untouched traditionally, it is not seen as a revenue
driver. Gamification of CR programs can shift this perspective while simultaneously
increasing employee engagement, lowering hiring costs and increase cost savings.
Companies like IBM and AT&T have already discovered the benefits of such a platform
and have effectively created a competitive advantage as well as a new profit-generating
62
center, all while server the “greater good.” Corporate responsibility does not have to
deplete organizations of financial resources; with the proper application it can be
leveraged into an unexpected business advantage that benefits all organization
stakeholders. Through case studies and trend analysis, this thesis argued that gamification
is the solution to address the need to determine financial ROI in CR programs as well as
to increase its profitability and role as a mutually beneficial initiative for both
organization’s and the community. Each organization must determine what key goals CR
gamification will work to address in a specific organization, however, business objectives
are clearly defined, a collective application of gamification could forever transform the
CR industry. “Gamification is indeed proving to be an effective new tool in the CR
practitioners' toolkit, and it can help you reach and engage with sectors of your workforce
and communities that you may not have been able to reach previously” (Owen 2013).
63
Bibliography
"2013 CSR Awards: Workplace Innovation - PR News." PR News. February 11, 2013.
Accessed February
10, 2015. http://www.prnewsonline.com/topics/corporate-
responsibility/2013/02/11/2013-csr-awards-workplace-innovation/.
"3 Must Haves to Ensure Critical Projects Succeed." PM-Partners Group. February 26,
2013. Accessed
February 10, 2015. https://www.pm-partners.com.au/insights/ensure-projects-
succeed/.
"Aesthetics." - Enterprise Gamification Wiki. October 5, 2013. Accessed February 5,
2015.
http://www.enterprise-gamification.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Aesthetics.
Anderson, Janna and Lee Rainie. "Main Findings: Getting into the Gamification?" Pew
Research Centers
Internet American Life Project. May 17, 2012. Accessed February 11, 2015.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/05/18/main-findings-getting-into-the-
gamification/.
Anderson, Nicole. "Five Ways AT&T Will Engage Employees to Do One Thing." Triple
Pundit.
September 30, 2012. Accessed February 5, 2015.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/10/five-ways-att-engages-employees-one/.
Arrington, Michael. "Badgeville Raises $12 Million, Celebrates With An Infographic."
TechCrunch. July
12, 2011. Accessed February 8, 2015.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/12/badgeville-raises-12-million-celebrates-with-
an-infographic/.
Barkworth, Hazel. "Six Trends That Will Shape Consumer Behavior This Year." Forbes.
February 4, 2014.
Accessed January 30, 2015.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2014/02/04/six-trends-that-will-shape-
consumer-behavior-this-year/.
Bartle, Richard. "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs." Players
Who Suit MUD.
January 1, 1996. Accessed February 15, 2015.
http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm#1.
64
Barinka, Alex. "IBM's Efforts to Shift to Cloud Come With Profit Sacrifice."
Bloomberg.com. January 20,
2015. Accessed February 10, 2015.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-21/ibm-s-efforts-to-shift-to-
the-cloud-comes-with-profit-sacrifice.
Bess, Charles. "Gamification: Driving Behavior Change in the Connected World." Cutter
IT Journal 26, no.
2 (2013). Accessed February 15, 2015. http://www.cutter.com/content-and-
analysis/journals-and-reports/cutter-it-journal/sample/itj1302/itj1302e.html.
"Big Demands and High Expectations The Deloitte Millennial Survey." Deloitte. January
1, 2014.
Accessed January 3, 2015.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-
Deloitte/gx-dttl-2014-millennial-survey-report.pdf.
Bonini, Sheila, Timothy M. Koller, and Philip H. Mirvis. "Valuing Social Responsibility
Programs."
McKinsey & Company: Insights & Publications. July 1, 2009. Accessed January
1, 2015.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/corporate_finance/valuing_social_responsibili
ty_programs.
Boinodiris, Phaedra. "Let's Play! Turning Serious Business Issues Into Games." Forbes.
December 14,
2011. Accessed February 10, 2015.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2011/12/14/lets-play-turning-serious-
business-issues-into-games/.
Boinodiris, Phaedra, and Peter Fingar. Serious Games for Business: Using Gamification
to Fully Engage
Customers, Employees and Partners. Tampa, FL: Meghan-Kiffer Press, 2014.
Bowers, Toni. "Gamification Data Can Drive ROI." TechRepublic. October 31, 2012.
Accessed February
5, 2015. http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/big-data-analytics/gamification-data-
can-drive-roi/.
Boyd, Stowe. "Gamification Is Baloney." Gigaom Research. September 10, 2013.
Accessed February 10,
2015. http://research.gigaom.com/2013/09/gamification-is-baloney/.
Bradley, Diana. "The Value of Gamified CSR." PR Week. October 1, 2014. Accessed
February 15, 2015.
65
http://www.prweek.com/article/1314544/value-gamified-CR.
Bramhall, Jessica, Brendan LeBlanc, and Stephen Starbuck. "The Value of Sustainability
Reporting." EY.
Accessed January 15, 2015. http://www.ey.com/US/en/Services/Specialty-
Services/Climate-Change-and-Sustainability-Services/Value-of-sustainability-
reporting.
Browne, John, and Robin Nuttall. "Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility: Integrated
External
Engagement." McKinsey & Company. March 1, 2013. Accessed January 10,
2015.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/beyond_corporate_social_responsibili
ty_integrated_external_engagement.
Brusseau, James. "Chapter 13.2: Three Theories of Corporate Social Responsibility."
In The Business
Ethics Workshop, v. 1.0, 415. 11th ed. Vol. 1. 2011.
Burke, Brian. "The Gamification of Business." Forbes. January 21, 2013. Accessed
February 2, 2015.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gartnergroup/2013/01/21/the-gamification-of-
business/.
Burke, Steven. "More Than A Game: IBM's Innov8 2.0." CRN. February 23, 2009.
Accessed February 10,
2015. http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/channel-programs/214502569/more-than-
a-game-ibms-innov8-2-0.htm.
Burns, Colleen. "Gamification: Unlocking Hidden Collaboration Potential." IBM.
February 2, 2012.
Accessed February 5, 2015. https://www-
304.ibm.com/connections/blogs/socialbusiness/entry/gamification_unlocking_hid
den_collaboration_potential2?lang=en_us.
Carless, Simon. "AGDC: Paharia, Andrade On Making Dunder Mifflin Infinity."
Gamasutra. September
17, 2008. Accessed February 2, 2015. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-
bin/news_index.php?story=20288.
Carroll, Archie B. "A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate
Performance." Academy of
Management Review 4, no. 4 (1979): 497-505.
66
Carroll, Archie B. "Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional
Construct." In BUSINESS
& SOCIETY: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management, 268-295. 3rd
ed. Vol. 38. Sage Publications, 1999.
Chou, Yukai. "Octalysis: Complete Gamification Framework." Yukai Chou -
Gamification. June 13, 2014.
Accessed February 5, 2015. http://www.yukaichou.com/gamification-
examples/octalysis-complete-gamification-framework/#.VPg6FPnF_h4.
Chou, Yu-kai. "Gamification, Human Focused Design and 8 Core Drives - The Octalysis
Group." The
Octalysis Group. 2014. Accessed February 15, 2015. http://octalysisgroup.com/.
"Chuck Coonradt Called the ‘Grandfather of Gamification’" Welcome to the Game of
Work. Accessed
February 1, 2015. http://www.gameofwork.com/.
"CityOne Game." IBM CityOne Game. January 1, 2010. Accessed February 10, 2015.
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/solutions/soa/innov8/cityone/index.jsp.
"Citizenship." The Walt Disney Company. Accessed January 19, 2015.
http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/citizenship.
"Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)." WBCSD - World Business Council for
Sustainable
Development. Accessed November 1, 2014. http://www.wbcsd.org/work-
program/business-role/previous-work/corporate-social-responsibility.aspx.
"Corporate Social Responsibility Definition | Investopedia." Investopedia. October 28,
2007. Accessed
November 1, 2014. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corp-social-
responsibility.asp.
Dill, Kathryn. "The Companies With The Best CSR Reputations." Forbes. December 8,
2014. Accessed
January 30, 2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2014/12/08/the-
companies-with-the-best-csr-reputations/.
“Do One Thing 2013 Accomplishments.” YouTube video, 1:52. Posted by “AT&T,”
January 7, 2014,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI5IxPuLMpg.
Drucker, Peter F. "Converting Social Problems into Business Opportunities: The New
Meaning of
67
Corporate Social Responsibility." California Management Review 26, no. 2
(1984): 53-63.
Dubbels, Brock. "Gamification, Serious Games, Ludic Simulation, and Other
Contentious Categories."
International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations 5, no. 2
(2013): 1-19.
Dutton, Shelly. "Bringing (Corporate Social) Responsibility To The Future Of Work."
SAP BUSINESS
INNOVATION. May 27, 2014. Accessed January 2, 2015.
http://blogs.sap.com/innovation/human-resources/bringing-corporate-social-
responsibility-future-work-01252131.
Edery, David, and Ethan Mollick. Changing the Game. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: FT
Press, 2009.
"Effective Internal Marketing of CSR Can Attract and Retain Top Employees." Network
for Business
Sustainability. December 1, 2008. Accessed February 5, 2015. http://nbs.net/wp-
content/uploads/RI-Effective-internal-marketing-of-CSR-can-attract-and-retain-
top-employees.pdf.
Egan, Companies Cannot Continue to Pretend to Serve Society While Simultaneously
Acting against It,
Says Dermot Egan Photograph: Issei Kato/REUTERS Dermot. "CSR Is Dead,
Long Live Social Enterprise." The Guardian. July 9, 2011. Accessed January 2,
2015. http://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2011/aug/09/shared-
value-csr-social-enterprise.
"Employee Engagement through Gamification." Engage For Success. December 2, 2013.
Accessed
February 5, 2015. http://www.engageforsuccess.org/employee-engagement-
gamification/.
"Employee Engagement: Why Technology Is Most Effective (WeSpire White Paper)."
2014.
“Engage the Power of Your Employees with WeSpire.” Vimeo video, 3:05. Posted by
“WeSpire,” August
19, 2014. https://vimeo.com/103836248.
"Engagement Unleashed: Gamification for Business, Brands and Loyalty." Slideshare.
June 1, 2011.
68
Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.slideshare.net/Saatchi_S/gamification-
study.
"Engaging Employees in Their Communities." AT&T. November 1, 2014. Accessed
February 10, 2015.
http://about.att.com/apps/csr/services/IssueBriefBuilder.pdf?download=people.
Epstein, Edwin M. The Corporate Social Policy Process and the Process of Corporate
Governance.
Berkeley, CA: Produced and Distributed by Center for Research in Management,
University of California, Berkeley Business School, 1987.
Epstein-Reeves, James. "Six Reasons Companies Should Embrace CSR." Forbes.
February 2, 2012.
Accessed November 11, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2012/02/21/six-
reasons-companies-should-embrace-csr/.
"Examples of Commercial Outcomes of Serious Games." In Serious Games Development
and Applications
5th International Conference, SGDA 2014, Berlin, Germany, October 9-10, 2014.
Proceedings, edited by Minhua Ma and Jannicke Hauge, by Manuel Fradinho
Oliveira. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014.
"Executive Summary - 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer." Edelman. January 15, 2015.
Accessed February 5,
2015. http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2015-edelman-trust-
barometer/trust-and-innovation-edelman-trust-barometer/executive-summary/.
Eyal, Nir, and Stuart Luman. "It's Not All Fun And Games: The Pros and Cons of
Gamification at Work."
Nir and Far. September 8, 2014. Accessed February 5, 2015.
http://www.nirandfar.com/2014/09/its-not-all-fun.html.
Fermin, Jeff. "13 Disturbing Facts About Employee Engagement [Infographic]." The
Huffington Post.
November 13, 2014. Accessed February 5, 2015.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-fermin/13-disturbing-facts-
about_b_6140996.html.
Ferriman, Justin. "The Origins of Gamification." LearnDash. August 19, 2014. Accessed
February 2, 2015.
http://www.learndash.com/the-origins-of-gamification/.
Fombrun, Charles, ed. "Too Many Feelings and Not Enough Facts in CSR Strategy."
Reputation
Intelligence, December 1, 2013, 4-5.
69
Freeman, R. Edward. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston,
Massachusetts: Pitman,
1984. 46.
Friedman, Milton. "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits." The
New York Times,
September 13, 1970.
"From Fringe to Mainstream: Companies Integrate CSR Initiatives into Everyday
Business." Knowledge @
Wharton. May 23, 2012. Accessed February 27, 2015.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/from-fringe-to-mainstream-
companies-integrate-csr-initiatives-into-everyday-business/.
Gadiyar, Anitha Rao. "Gamification 3.0: The Power of Personalization." Cognizant.
November 1, 2014.
Accessed February 20, 2015.
http://www.cognizant.com/InsightsWhitepapers/gamification-3.0-the-power-of-
personalization-codex1020.pdf.
"Gamification." Badgeville: Gamification Wiki. Accessed February 1, 2015.
http://badgeville.com/wiki/Gamification.
"Gamification 101: An Introduction to Game Dynamics." Bunchball. September 1, 2012.
Accessed
February 5, 2015.
http://go.bunchball.com/rs/bunchball/images/Bunchball_Gamification_101_0912.
pdf.
"Gamification Cost Ranges." Enterprise Gamification. February 23, 2013. Accessed
February 15, 2015.
http://www.enterprise-
gamification.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Category:Gamification_Cost_Range
s.
"Gartner's 2014 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies Maps the Journey to Digital
Business." Gartner.
August 11, 2014. Accessed February 2, 2015.
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2819918.
"Gartner Reveals 2014 Mobility Predictions." Gartner. January 13, 2014. Accessed
February 1, 2015.
"GRI - Global Reporting Initiative & CSR Reporting." Triple Pundit. January 1, 2015.
Accessed January
70
30, 2015. http://www.triplepundit.com/topic/gri/.
Goh, Jonathan. "Towards a New Motivational Framework." Gametize. September 4,
2014. Accessed March
5, 2015. http://blog.gametize.com/2014/09/new-motivational-framework/.
Gonzalez, Nayelli. "Do One Thing: Lessons in Driving Employee Engagement."
Sustainable Brands.
September 13, 2013. Accessed February 15, 2015.
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/employee_engagement/do-
one-thing-lessons-driving-employee-engagement.
Heidt, Jessica. "Champions of DOT." Behance. January 1, 2014. Accessed February 10,
2015.
https://www.behance.net/gallery/21848897/Champions-of-DOT.
Humlen, Anneliza. "CSR Communication Goal Should Be Impact, Not Information." The
Huffington Post.
August 27, 2014. Accessed January 3, 2015.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anneliza-humlen/csr-communication-goal-
sh_b_5724560.html.
"IBM "Serious Game" Provides Training to Tackle Global Business Challenges." IBM.
Accessed February
10, 2015. https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/26734.wss.
"IBM "Serious Game" Provides Training to Tackle Global Business Challenges." IBM.
February 19, 2009.
Accessed February 10, 2015. https://www-
03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/26734.wss.
Kamal, Ashok. "Gamifying Sustainability: The Carrot Beats the Stick." Sustainable
Brands. June 5, 2012.
Accessed February 5, 2015.
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/june2012/gamifying-
sustainability-carrot-beats-stick.
Kaplan, Auren. "Causecast Makes It Easy for Companies to Give Back." The Huffington
Post. February 2,
2012. Accessed February 15, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/auren-
kaplan/causecast-makes-it-easy-f_b_1245742.html.
Kielburger, Craig, and Marc Kielburger. "The Rise of Corporate Social Responsibility."
The Huffington
71
Post. May 25, 2011. Accessed January 2, 2015.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-kielburger-and-marc-kielburger/the-rise-of-
corporate-soc_b_85395.html.
Kramer, Mark, and Michael Porter. "Strategy and Society: The Link Between
Competitive Advantage and
Corporate Social Responsibility." Harvard Business Review, December 1, 2006.
Krogue, Ken. "5 Gamification Rules From The Grandfather Of Gamification." Forbes.
September 18, 2012.
Accessed February 1, 2015.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkrogue/2012/09/18/5-gamification-rules-from-
the-grandfather-of-gamification/.
Lali, Abdelilah. "Play the Innov8 Game to Learn Business Process Management." IBM.
April 3, 2008.
Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-
bpm-innov8/ws-bpm-innov8-pdf.pdf.
Longsworth, Annie. "Simply Irresistible." Saatchi Saatchi S. June 4, 2012. Accessed
February 9, 2015.
http://www.saatchis.com/simply-irresistible/.
Lustig, Robert H. "Chapter 5: Food Addition - Fact or Fallacy." In Fat Chance: Beating
the Odds against
Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, 320. Penguin Group, 2013.
Lys, Thomas, James Naughton, and Clare Wang. "Pinpointing the Value in CSR - The
Unexpected Link
between CSR Spending and Financial Performance." Kellogg Insight. May 4,
2013. Accessed November 3, 2014.
http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/pinpointing_the_value_in_CsR/.
Mack, Ann. "10 Trends That Will Shape Consumer Mindset and Behavior in 2014."
JWTIntelligence.
December 4, 2013. Accessed November 1, 2014.
http://www.jwtintelligence.com/2013/12/10-trends-shape-consumer-mindset-
behavior-2014/#axzz3TUCU1hIT.
Makower, Joel. "State of Green Business: Employee Engagement Becomes Strategic."
GreenBiz. February
7, 2014. Accessed November 4, 2014.
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/02/17/state-green-business-employee-
engagement-becomes-strategic.
72
Malone, Thomas. "What Makes Things Fun to Learn?: A Study of Intrinsically
Motivating Computer
Games." Cognitive and Instructional Sciences Series, 1980.
Marczewski, Andrzej. "Lowering Barriers with Gamification." Gamified UK. June 6,
2014. Accessed
February 10, 2015. http://www.gamified.uk/2014/06/06/lowering-barriers-
gamification/.
Marczewski, Andrzej. "What's the Difference between Gamification and Serious
Games?" Gamasutra.
March 11, 2013. Accessed February 1, 2015.
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/AndrzejMarczewski/20130311/188218/Whats_the_di
fference_between_Gamification_and_Serious_Games.php?print=1.
"Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG)." Techopedia. January 1, 2010. Accessed
February 13,
2015. http://www.techopedia.com/definition/27054/massively-multiplayer-online-
game-mmog.
Moeger, Carolyn. "AT&T Do One Thing." Behance. Accessed February 10, 2015.
https://www.behance.net/gallery/21019523/AT-T-Do-One-Thing.
Molenaar, Maarten. "Into the Trough: Gamification in the 2014 Gartner Hype Cycle."
Enterprise
Gamification Consultancy. August 22, 2014. Accessed February 10, 2015.
http://enterprise-
gamification.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=223:into-
the-trough-gamification-in-the-2014-gartner-hype-
cycle&catid=4&Itemid=251&lang=en.
Moura-Leite, Rosamaria C., and Robert C. Padgett. "Historical Background Of Corporate
Social
Responsibility." Social Responsibility Journal 7, no. 4 (2011): 528-39. Accessed
November 1, 2014.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/1747111111117511.
Neisser, Drew. "Gaming Is Serious Business (even at IBM)." Fast Company. May 5,
2010. Accessed
February 10, 2015. http://www.fastcompany.com/1638401/gaming-serious-
business-even-ibm.
Ng, Keitth. "Emotional loyalty with Gamification and Game Psychology." Lecture,
Loyalty Summit 2014,
Mumbai, January 30, 2014.
73
Nicholson, Scott. "A User Centered Theoretical Framework for Meaningful
Gamification." Scott
Nicholson. June 1, 2012. Accessed February 15, 2015.
http://scottnicholson.com/pubs/meaningfulframework.pdf.
"Our Irresistible Clients." Saatchi Saatchi S. January 1, 2013. Accessed February 10,
2015.
http://www.saatchis.com/our-clients-2/att/.
Owen, Paula. "Can Gamification Help Enhance The CSR Credibility Of Your
Company?" CSRwire - The
Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire. May 13, 2013. Accessed February 1,
2015. http://www.CSRwire.com/blog/posts/757-can-gamification-help-enhance-
the-CSR-credibility-of-your-company.
Paharia, Rajat. Loyalty 3.0 How to Revolutionize Customer and Employee Engagement
with Big Data and
Gamification. 1st ed. Vol. 1. McGraw-Hill, 2013.
Peterson, Kyle, and Marc Pfitzer. "Lobbying for Good (SSIR)." Stanford Social
Innovation Review.
December 1, 2009. Accessed February 4, 2015.
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/lobbying_for_good.
Pollak, Lindsey. "Countdown To 2020: Why You Need To Create A Millennial Action
Plan." Keenan &
Associates. February 17, 2015. Accessed February 18, 2015.
http://www.keenan.com/2015/countdown-to-2020-why-you-need-to-create-a-
millennial-action-plan/.
Post, Rachael. "Game On: Could Gamification Help Business Change Behaviour?" The
Guardian. June 11,
2014. Accessed February 4, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/game-on-gamification-business-change-behavior.
Rabin, Emily. "What Matters Most: Shell Oil's CSR Crisis in the North Sea." GreenBiz.
May 16, 2004.
Accessed November 1, 2014. http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2004/05/16/what-
matters-most-shell-oils-csr-crisis-north-sea.
Rauch, Marta. "Using a Gamification Framework to Start Your Own Gamification
Project." Lecture, The
74
LavaCon Conference 2013, Portland, October 20, 2013.
Reeve, Carlton. "Game Mechanics." Play with Learning. March 5, 2014. Accessed
February 1, 2015.
http://playwithlearning.com/2014/03/05/game-mechanics/.
Robinson, Sarah Finnie. "WeSpire Game Mechanics." Telephone interview by author.
February 18, 2015.
Rogers, Bruce. "Too Many Feelings and Not Enough Facts in CSR Strategy." Forbes.
October 7, 2013.
Accessed October 27, 2014.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/10/07/too-many-feelings-and-not-
enough-facts-in-csr-strategy/.
Roth, Bill. "Gamification: Making Change Fun, Engaging And Sustainable." Triple
Pundit. September 17,
2012. Accessed February 5, 2015.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/09/practically-green-gamification-making-
change-fun-engaging-sustainable/.
Scott, Ryan. "The Key Ingredient of CSR." Forbes. February 26, 2014. Accessed
November 3, 2014.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/causeintegration/2014/02/26/the-key-ingredient-of-
csr/.
Smith, Craig. "Drucker on the 'bounded Goodness' of Corporate Social Responsibility."
INSEAD
Knowledge. January 25, 2010. Accessed November 1, 2014.
http://knowledge.insead.edu/ethics/drucker-on-the-bounded-goodness-of-
corporate-social-respon-1254#C1LdrWS9y3v8goHr.99.
Stewart, Bart. "The Four Bartle Types." Gamasutra. January 1, 2015. Accessed February
5, 2015.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6474/personality_and_play_styles_a_.ph
p?print=1.
Swann, Adam. "Gamification Comes of Age." Forbes. July 16, 2012. Accessed February
1, 2015.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gyro/2012/07/16/gamification-comes-of-age/.
Tandulwadikar, Akhil. "Gamifying Business to Drive Employee Engagement and
Performance."
Cognizant. September 1, 2013. Accessed February 5, 2015.
http://www.cognizant.com/InsightsWhitepapers/Gamifying-Business-to-Drive-
Employee-Engagement-and-Performance.pdf.
75
"The Importance of Corporate Social Responsibility." Regenesys. November 11, 2013.
Accessed
November 1, 2014. http://regenesys.co.za/2013/11/importance-corporate-social-
responsibility/.
"The Rise and Fall of Enron: A Brief History." CBC News. May 25, 2006. Accessed
January 2, 2015.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/the-rise-and-fall-of-enron-a-brief-history-
1.591559.
Thomas, C. William. "The Rise and Fall of Enron." Journal of Accountancy. March 31,
2002. Accessed
November 10, 2014.
http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2002/Apr/TheRiseAndFallOfEnron.
htm.
"SOCIETAL TRENDS: Changing Behavior in a Dynamic Society." TRENDSACTIVE –
International
Trend Interpretation Agency. Accessed February 15, 2015.
http://www.trendsactive.com/#!/our-trends/societal-trends/.
"Triple Bottom Line." The Economist. November 17, 2009. Accessed November 2, 2014.
http://www.economist.com/node/14301663.
"Trust Across Industries - 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer." Edelman. January 15, 2015.
Accessed February
5, 2015. http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2015-edelman-
trust-barometer/trust-across-industries/.
Turco, Kyle. "The History of Gamification Infographic: From Stamps to Space."
Technology Advice.
March 27, 2014. Accessed February 1, 2015.
http://technologyadvice.com/gamification/blog/history-of-gamification-
infographic/.
"UN Conference on Environment and Development (1992)." UN News Center. January
1, 1997. Accessed
November 1, 2014. http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html.
"Unilever's Sustainability Program Saves $395M since 2008." GreenBiz. April 18, 2013.
Accessed
February 1, 2015.
76
Vogel, David. "CSR Doesn't Pay." Forbes. October 6, 2008. Accessed November 2,
2014.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/16/csr-doesnt-pay-lead-corprespons08-
cx_dv_1016vogel.html.
"Water Use by Consumers." Unilever. January 1, 2015. Accessed January 2, 2015.
http://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living-2014/reducing-environmental-
impact/water-use/water-use-by-consumers/.
Werther, William B., and David Chandler. "CSR: ISSUES AND CASE STUIDES." In
Strategic Corporate
Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment, 374. 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2011.
"WHAT'S WRONG WITH CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY? : The
Evolution of CSR."
Corporate Watch. January 1, 2014. Accessed November 10, 2014.
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/content/whats-wrong-corporate-social-
responsibility-evolution-csr.
"What Is GRI?" What Is GRI? Accessed January 30, 2015.
https://www.globalreporting.org/information/about-gri/what-is-
GRI/Pages/default.aspx.
"What Is Serious Gaming." LUDUS Project. January 1, 2010. Accessed February 1,
2015.
http://www.ludus-project.eu/seriousgaming.html.
"Who We Are." About SVN. January 1, 2015. Accessed November 1, 2014.
http://svn.org/who-we-are/about-svn.
"Why Attend GSummit." GSummit. December 17, 2013. Accessed February 12, 2015.
http://sf14.gsummit.com/why-attend/.
"Why Gamification?" Gametize Pte Ltd. March 3, 2013. Accessed February 10, 2015.
http://corp.gametize.com/about/.
Willard, Bob. "The Five Stage Sustainability Journey." 2degrees. October 22, 2012.
Accessed January 3,
2015. https://www.2degreesnetwork.com/groups/2degrees-
community/resources/five-stage-sustainability-journey/.
77
Wolf, Gary. "The Data-Driven Life." The New York Times. May 1, 2010. Accessed
November 1, 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/magazine/02self-measurement-
t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
Wolf, John. "4 Barriers to a Successful Gamification Program in Your Contact Center -
The Real-time
Frontline Blog." Intradiem. October 28, 2014. Accessed February 12, 2015.
http://blog.intradiem.com/gamification-contact-center-agents/.
"Women's Economic Empowerment - The Coca-Cola Sustainability Project." Coca-Cola
Company.
November 7, 2012. Accessed January 2, 2015. http://www.coca-
colacompany.com/sustainabilityreport/we/womens-economic-
empowerment.html#section-empowering-5-million-women-by-2020.
Zichermann, Gabe. "Beyond the Hype: 5 Ways That Big Companies Are Using
Gamification." Gigaom.
January 27, 2013. Accessed February 15, 2015.
https://gigaom.com/2013/01/27/beyond-the-hype-5-ways-that-big-companies-are-
using-gamification/.
Zichermann, Gabe. "Games for Good: Transforming Business through Gamification."
Lecture, BSR
Conference 2013: The Power of Networks from BSR, San Francisco, November
8, 2013.
78
APPENDIX
79
APPENDIX A: The Origin of Corporate Responsibility
While it is difficult to pinpoint the initial start date for CR, original concern for
social responsibility can be traced back as far as the 1930’s and 40’s with references in
The Functions of the Executive by Chester Barnard’s (1938), Social Control of Business
by J. M. Clark’s (1939) and Measurement of the Social Performance of Business by
Theodore Kreps (1940) (Carroll 1999). Chester Barnard introduced the premise of
encouraging both cooperation and organization from a socio-psychological perspective.
J.M. Clark introduced the theory of the “economics of responsibility” and Theodore
Kreps coined the term “social audit” in his text and courses at Stanford University that
integrated the study of business and social welfare. The definition and practice of modern
CR can be traced to Howard R. Bowen in his 1953 book, Social Responsibilities of the
Businessman (Carroll 1999). “It refers to the obligations of businessmen to pursue those
[socially responsible] policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action
which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (Carroll 1999).
Bowen’s benchmark publication provided one of the first complete reviews of business
ethics and social responsibility. It laid the foundation for ethical issues of business
operations in the United States. Collectively, these texts are considered the first printed
publications that introduced societal concerns and considerations into the theory of
economics and business – providing guidelines and self-governing standards in regard to
ethics.
In 1987, Edwin M. Epstein provided a cohesive definition of CR in attempt to
relate social responsibility, responsiveness and business ethics, which he called the
‘‘corporate social policy process.’’ Epstein’s study, The Corporate Social Policy Process
and the Process of Corporate Governance, marked a major transition from CR that was
primarily focused on actions of individuals to a corporate/ organization level perspective.
Incorporating the considerations in regard to legality, CR was seen as a humanized entity
that could produce positive returns exceeding the collective ability of individual
executives (Epstein 1987).
“From approximately 1990 until now, the concept of CR has become almost
universally sanctioned and promoted by all constituents in society from governments and
80
corporations to consumers and non-governmental organizations. Even international
organizations (e.g. The United Nations, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, the International Labor Organization) have fully
supported and aggressively established guidelines to continue the movement.” (Moura-
Leite 2011)
81
APPENDIX B: Critical Events and Frameworks that Shaped Modern-Day CR
CR is Nonsense – Milton Friedman released a condemning New York Times Magazine
article in 1970 that iterated the sole-purpose organizations exist it to generate profits. The
growing sensationalism surrounding the premise and wide spread adoption of corporate
responsibility was a passing trend. “What does it mean to say that "business" has
responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial
person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole
cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense” (Friedman 1970).
Friedman did not affirm the belief the corporations had a moral obligation or
responsibility to act in any manner outside of profit generation. Though his beliefs placed
the CR field under intense scrutiny, it did prompt an increase in academic discussion,
awareness and analysis of the viability and value of CR. Opponents to Friedman’s theory
were pressured to strengthen the business case for CR and its general relevance and
necessity in an economic environment.
The Four Responsibilities of a Business - In 1979, Archie Carroll attempted to create a
perspective that maintained both an economic and social orientation through the
application of his CR academic framework. Carroll’s framework integrated the economic,
legal, ethical, and philanthropic facets of organizations, stating that they all were equally
necessary to be considered a good “corporate citizen.” This framework gave the industry
a consistent measure when evaluating the operations of organizations in regard to CR
(Carroll 1979).
The New Meaning of Corporate Responsibility – In 1984, Peter Drucker, management
and CR expert, released a publication that argued that “the proper ‘social responsibility’
of business is to … turn a social problem into economic opportunity and economic
benefit, into productive capacity, into human competence, into well-paid jobs, and into
wealth” (Drucker 1984). This theory lends to the notion of “win-win” economics;
according to Drucker, if organizations effectively work to enhance sustainability, they
will reap the benefits by participating as major players in this economic market and
82
improve financial profitability. Drucker’s publication, in addition to his previous works,
“The End of Economic Man, 1939 and The Future of Industrial Man, 1942, affirmed his
view of the social purpose of business and [its] grounds for corporate legitimacy” (Smith
2010).
The Stakeholder Theory - The year 1984 also birthed another prominent framework,
The Stakeholder Theory, developed by R. Edward Freeman in his book: Strategic
Management: A Stakeholder Approach. With this theory, Freeman’s goal was to expand
the economic-centric perspective of strategic management by redefining the term
“stakeholder.” “Stakeholders are classically defined as ‘any group or individual who can
affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives’ and are taken to
include shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers and society, at a minimum. The
stakeholder theory of the firm was initially conceived as a theory of strategic
management” (Freeman 1984).
Ben & Jerry’s Social Report – Ben Cohen was the co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s Ice
Cream as well a charter member of the Social Venture Network (SVN), an organization
purposed to “support and empower diverse, innovative leaders who leverage business to
serve the greater good” (“Who We Are” 2015). Cohen was a leader in confronting large
corporations consistently demonstrated and advocated for companies to focus on the
"double bottom line" that balances people and profit. To emphasize this, the organization
became the first to company to release a social responsibility report in 1989 that
highlighted their CR contributions and company goals. This was the start of a trend in CR
reporting that has only grown more robust and exhaustive in subsequent years (Werther
2011).
1992 Earth Summit – The U.N. Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro resulted in the “Agenda 21” publication.
The main goal of this summit was to develop an agreement to reduce emissions of
"greenhouse gases" believed to be a cause of global warming. In this agreement and
83
publication, the summit attendees introduced the "sustainable development” business
model, as well as the idea of using sustainable development to a company's competitive
advantage. This agreement is considered one of the first impactful international decisions
that directly references the need for businesses to factor in sustainability in their global
operations (“UN Conference on Environment and Development (1992)" 1997).
Shell – In 1995 Shell was accused of being complicit in the execution of nine activists,
the “Ogoni Nine,” in Nigeria, as well as sinking the Brent Spar oil platform in the North
Sea. Shell temporarily lost the confidence of investors and the public, which immediately
led to decreased profits and brand credibility. To regain confidence, Shell's strategy
focused on the 'magic keys': openness and dialogue. As a result Shell became the first
major organization to begin releasing CR reports, pioneering and honing the practice of
its 1998 newsletter-like publication 'Profit and Principles’ (Rabin 2004).
CR Service Offerings– In the 1990’s, companies like PWC and Burson-Marsteller began
legitimizing the practice of CR by offering consultancy services in the area. “CR evolved
beyond simple codes of conduct and reporting to include more extensive dialogue with
stakeholders, NGO engagement and 'multi-stakeholder initiatives' such as the Ethical
Trading Initiative (1993) and the Forest Stewardship Council (1998), bringing together
companies, NGOs and in some cases governments” ("WHAT'S WRONG WITH
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY? - The Evolution of CSR" 2014). The
standardization of service offerings further gave credence the value and rising importance
of CR in business operations.
Enron Implosion – In 2001, after being considered one of the world’s most profitable
and innovative companies, Enron admitted to misstating their income and equity values
by billions of dollars. Enron's collapse spurred increasing mistrust of corporations and led
to public policy discussions centered on protecting investors. From this conversation
birthed the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. Though the primary purpose of this
congressional legislation was to better protect investors from becoming victims of
84
fraudulent accounting, it prompted discussion about the moral obligation of corporations
to proactively protect the needs of their stakeholders and community (Thomas 2002).
The indignation towards Enron disrupted cultural norms and sparked the attention of all
stakeholders to be vigilant in holding organizations accountable for their actions.
Whistleblowers began to transition from anonymity into being championed for their
courage to demand organization’s act ethically in all operations. This trend ultimately led
to the growing expectation for companies to actively engage in initiatives that cater to the
“greater good” and that they operate transparently (Thomas 2002).
85
APPENDIX C: The Origin of Gamification
The concept of applying “games” to a business system in order to influence a
desired outcome is not a new construct. However, the term gamification originated with
Nick Pelling, British programmer and video game designer, in 2002 (Marczewski 2013).
Prior to the coining of the phrase, concepts of gamification can be traced back to 1896
when the organization, S&H, began a stamp loyalty program to reward customers (Turco
2014).
Chuck Coonradt, author of the 1973 publication “The Game of Work,” is credited
with academically pioneering the field of gamification. Coonradt, dubbed the
“grandfather of gamification,” published this text in an economic climate that showed a
strong negative correlation between the U.S. workforce productivity (decreasing) and
recreation equipment purchases (increasing) (Krogue 2012). Using this data Coonradt
“examined the phenomenon that people will work harder and expend more energy in
sports and other athletic pursuits than they will at their daily jobs. Why? Because in
sports, a player has constant feedback on how he or she is doing the score is known and
the effort necessary to win is established. In work, feedback is unreliable, inconsistent,
and often nonexistent. At work you seldom know the score or what it takes to win”
("Chuck Coonradt Called the ‘Grandfather of Gamification’"). Coonradt further
deciphered that his finding shed light on the key principles to use when motivating
someone to complete a task: provide frequent feedback, clear goals and personal choice.
These key principles were chosen because of their blanket application to all games.
Coonradt’s relationship analysis between work productivity and investment in games
sparked the further academic study into the ramifications of the relationship and laid the
groundwork for academic gamification theories (Krogue 2012).
Following Coondrat’s research, Thomas Malone extended the field of
gamification academic research with the 1980 publication “What makes things fun to
learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games.” In a forward thinking and
still salient point, Malone finds that curiosity, independent of any external spark, is the
motivation to learn. “Computer games can evoke a learner’s curiosity by providing
environments that have an optimal level of informational complexity. In other words, the
environments should be neither too complicated nor too simple with respect to the
86
learner’s existing knowledge. They should be novel and surprising, but not completely
incomprehensible” (Malone 1980). The computer games were able to optimally provide a
challenge to the player while remaining stress levels and experience enjoyable. Coonradt
and Malone’s approaches, as precursors of gamification, gave rise to a sub-genre of the
concept, the “gamification of work.”
Looking outside of the academic arena and into professional services, airlines are
credited with created the first large-scale gamification systems via the inaugural
American Airline’s Frequent Flyer program in 1981 (Ferriman 2014). As loyalty
programs began to emulate the flyer miles system, the innovative company Bunchball
was first to create and implement a system for social gaming mechanics as a professional
service via Dunder Mifflin Infinity in 2005 (Carless 2008). “The firm originally
developed a synchronous game-related set of websites, and gradually built 'level up'
mechanics into their business model, and have essentially "turned game mechanics into a
service" for multiple websites - rewarding achievements” (Carless 2008). This project
closed at $2 million and became a key indicator that investors were willing to give
resources to organizations seeking to further establish reputations in the gamification
industry.
87
APPENDIX D: Critical Events that Shaped Gamification
Because of the distinction between traditional gaming and gamification, a critical
path to the creation of the gamification industry can prove to be unclear. However the
2010 investment deal for the gamification company Badgeville gave immediate credence
and attention to modern day digital gamification as a viable business industry. In a
historic partnership, Badgeville garnered $12 million dollars in venture-capital funding
from Norwest Venture Partners and El Dorado Ventures, with participation from previous
investors Trinity Ventures and Webb Investment Network (Arrington 2011). Since this
deal, Badgeville’s “customers include Discovery Communications, NBC, Bluefly.com,
Interscope Records, Major League Gaming, LiveMocha, The Active Network, and
Deloitte Digital” (Arrington 2011).
The Gartner Research firm added to the field’s popularity upon the release of their
2011 research and predictions study touted that by “50% of corporate innovation will be
‘gamified’” (Anderson 2015). While these estimations may have been lofty, they enabled
gamification industry leaders to have additional legitimacy to their claims of monetary
benefits from fun, game-based work environments, and prompted business analysts to
further dissect the fields merits, as well as shortcomings, for public industry
consumption.
88
APPENDIX E: Key Gamification Terms
Serious Games: “Applications developed with game technology and design principles
having training, situation simulation or education while entertaining the user as a prime
purpose. Serious Gaming is, thus, games that engage users in their pursuit and contribute
to the achievement of a defined purpose other than pure entertainment” ("What Is Serious
Gaming" 2010).
Game Mechanics: Game Mechanics enables the identification of techniques to be used
to make the gamification process interesting and engaging. “Game mechanics [can]
include: points, levels, challenges, virtual goods and spaces, leaderboards, gifts and
charity” ("Gamification 101: An Introduction to Game Dynamics" 2012).
Game Dynamics: Considered the “the run-time behavior” of Game Mechanics the reacts
based on player decisions and produces rewards and/or other suitable responses
“Game dynamics [can] include: rewards, status, achievement, self-expression,
competition and altruism” ("Gamification 101: An Introduction to Game Dynamics"
2012).
Game Mechanics and Dynamics: “Game Mechanics & Game Dynamics Game
mechanics are the basic actions, processes, and control mechanisms that are used to
“gamify” an activity. They are the rules and rewards that make up game play and create a
compelling, engaging user experience. Game mechanics make the activity challenging,
fun, satisfying, or whatever other emotion the game’s designers hope to evoke. These
emotions, in turn, are the compelling desires and motivations of the experience we call
game dynamics” ("Gamification 101: An Introduction to Game Dynamics" 2012).
Rules: “Rules place limits on how players can accomplish the goals within an effort. For
many situations, these rules are well known but may not have been codified. The
following three are the most relevant [to gamification]
89
1. Physical rules are rigid contextual constraints, such as the number of objects that
can fit within a certain volume or the fact that gravity always pulls toward the
center of mass.
2. Business rules are rules that are specific to a particular country or industry.
3. Social rules define what is acceptable within a cultural setting. These are affected
by the corporate values and principles. Global organizations need to be aware of
any regional mores that may come into play” (Bess 2013).
Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG): “A massively multiplayer online game
(MMOG) refers to videogames that allow a large number of players to participate
simultaneously over an internet connection. These games usually take place in a shared
world that the gamer can access after purchasing or installing the game software. The
explosive growth in MMOGs has prompted many game designers to build online
multiplayer modes into many traditionally single-player games” ("Massively Multiplayer
Online Game (MMOG)" 2010).
90
APPENDIX F: Gamification Governing Bodies
There are no official governing entities that regulate the field of gamification as the
use of the method is highly individualized to the needs of an organization. However,
there are some organizations that have emerged as thought leaders in the gamification
field that many organizations seek for guidance and research.
Gamification Corp.
Gamification Co is a thought leader in the field of gamification and serves as a hub for
“the latest news, insight, research and commentary on gamification.”(“About Us” 2013).
The organization produces white papers, hosts workshops, conducts webinars and serves
as the organizing body for the leading gamification conference, GSummit. GSummit
provides a platform for industry experts to and users “to learn how to bring effective
engagement strategies & design back to your company to conquer the user engagement
crisis” ("Why Attend GSummit" 2013).
Gartner
Gartner is considered the gamification industry’s leading research organization. Gartner’s
research depicting the gamification Hype Cycle, future industry projections, and strategic
webinars are widely cited as the authoritative data source by gamification organizations
when speaking statistically about the industry’s viability. Key publication from Gartner
includes “Gamification 2020: What Is the Future of Gamification?” and “Gamification
Will Induce Employees to Use HCM Solutions.”
91
APPENDIX G: Gamification of CR Enables Increased Profiling of
Stakeholders and Engagement
“Companies of all shapes and sizes have begun to use games to revolutionize the
way they interact with customers and employees, becoming more competitive and more
profitable as a result” (Edery 2009). Employee engagement is integral to the success and
continued profitability of an organization. 79 percent of companies believe they have a
significant employee retention and
engagement problem and 75 percent or
organizations are struggling to attract and
recruiting the top people they need (Fermin
2014). These statistics can be attributed to the
increasing disconnect between companies
and stakeholders. Gamification allows for
organizations to engage stakeholders through
customized scenarios and challenges based on
their own decisions as well as segment stakeholder types so that a gamified platform can
meet the engagement needs of each stakeholder. According to the Bartle Test of Gamer
Psychology (Bartle’s Player Types) model, there are four subsets of gamification players
with distinct characteristics: Explorers, Socialites, Achievers and Killers.
• Explorers (Knowledge Seeking) are stakeholders who look to discover and master
the background systems governing the operation of the game world. They have a
propensity to search for unknown facets of gamified platforms and creates strategic
accounts/ best practices for how to uncover and master these areas. Typically they
prefer to uncover the specifics of the game at their own pace and don’t enjoy time
limitations placed on them by gaming restrictions. This group can becomes bored
when games don’t offer variation and will abandon the system for months or years at
time (Stewart 2015).
• Socialites (Identity Seeking) focus on forming partnerships and relationships with
fellow players and innovating or leading their own projects or narratives within a
Figure 18 - Bartle's Player Types (Ng 2014)
92
gamification platform. Socialites are interested in the community aspect of
gamification and are genuinely concerned with the perspectives of others as well as
their growth, development and progress throughout the game. Socialites are not
concerned with winning a game but instead the quality and frequency of connecting
with fellow players (Stewart 2015).
• Achievers (Security Seeking) are reward driven and rise in status by collecting
prizes such as trophies, badges, high leaderboard rankings or physical gift such as a
gift card or plaque for achievement. They revel in mastering the rules and challenges
within the gamified platform. Though they achieve a high status, Achievers are
described as being insecure which fuels their need to accumulate material possessions
for protection and assistance. Achievers are willing to work hard on initiatives that
others may seem as daunting to reap a reward of points and higher level progression
(Stewart 2015).
• Killers (Sensation Seeking) are manipulative and their main goals are to attain
power and to win. Killers do not engage in competition for the comradery and have
the potential to interfere with the gamification experience of other players (Stewart
2015).
The personality types share some commonalities and can be further dissected to reveal
motivations for player engagement. For instance, “Killers and Achievers both turned out
to be mostly interested in acting on things or people, treating things and people as
external objects. At the same time, Explorers and Socializers both seemed to prefer a
deeper level of interacting with things or other people, focusing on internal qualities”
(Stewart 2015).
There are many different ways to apply these player types but they are most
useful when informing Game Mechanics and Game Features. CR initiatives leveraging
gamification might consider seeing if certain personality segments work better with
certain types of CR initiatives. The results can allow organizations to easily recognize
93
and incentivize stakeholders that help accomplish a variety of mission-critical business
goals through gamification platforms.
In addition to segmenting stakeholder types, organizations can increase levels of
employee and consumer engagement by using gamification platforms to crowdsource CR
initiatives. Instead of prescribing a plan of action, stakeholders will be able to either vote
for or suggest innovative CR programs that will be championed by the firm and
supported and marketed through a gamified platform. This crowdsourcing gives players
the satisfaction of having their opinion reflected in the actions an organization. This
extends a sense of ownership to a CR initiative that will prompt stakeholders to improve
the quality of interaction with a program because they championed for its
implementation.
94
APPENDIX H: Interview Notes - Sara Finnie Robinson, WeSpire
Interviewer: Christina Whittaker
Interviewee: Sarah Finnie Robinson
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Method: Phone Interview
Duration: 30 minutes
1. Could you please describe your role?
I [Robinson] am a Founding Partner at WeSpire. I was introduced the the CEO,
Susan Hunt Stevens a little over five years ago and I’ve been with WeSpire ever
since. Susan has a background at the New York Times and in digital
communications. I’ve worked with ivillage and stay connected with web
sustainability initiatives. I believe that sustainability is meaningful to both
employees and corporations.
2. What value does WeSpire provide to organizations?
We facilitate monthly calls with major organizations like Disney and MGM. In
these meetings organizations strategize corporate responsibility ideas with each
other, learn from past challenges and plan for their future CR initiatives. Our
organization is adaptive with our platform so that we are better meeting the needs
to enable these organizations to better engage and track their employees through
our gamified platform. We have several cast studies available on past successes.
3. How is the platform customized?
The platform is customized based on the needs of an organization. It can be a
reflection of a local team or expanded to international needs. The CR projects and
teams reflected in our platform are the result of content generated by the WeSpire
team and data gathered from organization leaders and employees.
Our platform enables and encourages collaboration with fellow teammates all
seeking to benefit socially responsible causes. Player don’t have to engage in
competition, there is an option simply to track performance metrics at one’s
discretion. However, the collaboration and group movement toward
95
accomplishing a CSR goal is vital. There are opportunities to cut your
environmental foot print, self-education on health issues, increase fitness an more.
4. Can you further describe other gamification elements in your system?
We don’t necessarily use the term gamification. We prefer using game mechanics
when describing our platform. There are more than 1,200 home-based actions
alone available in the system. These are things you can do at work, home or event
vacation. Prior to gaming system, this information would not have been captured
by an organization. Topics such as energy efficiency (in regard to LEED
standards), water sustainability and childcare are some of the options that players
can use when tracking their performance.
The platforms for companies are completely different in reference to how the
platform is presented. Some organizations want to focus more on volunteering,
family time and community service while others want to focus on office or
workplace sustainability. Our platform allows for the company-specific
customization.
5. What trends do you anticipate in the field of game mechanics?
Big data is definitely a fertile area of development. This will allow for a deeper
dive into how stakeholders behave and isolate root causes of behavior. Our
organization is beginning to look into this data element to see how to maximize
the social impact and ROI for our clients.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Gamification is an emerging field in the Corporate Responsibility (CR) industry, but in key areas where CR practices fall short including financial ROI measurement and declining stakeholder engagement, gamification offers a solution. Linking specific CR goals with individual user accounts in a gamification system allows for organizations to track the resulting performance such as costs saved, frequency of interaction and funds raised. Gamification is an innovation that can address both of CR’s critical risks and transform them into opportunities.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The CSR paradox: how communicating about good can turn out bad
PDF
Social innovation: Crowdsourcing and the new face of corporate social responsibility
PDF
An inconvenient truth about the public relations industry and greenwashing
PDF
Elevating the communication strategy game: how communication is key to the NCAA remaining relevant
PDF
Consumer awareness of Chinese brands in the United States
PDF
Principles of transmedia branding
PDF
Corporate social media: trends in the use of emerging social media in corporate America
PDF
Strangers on the home ground: the challenges and opportunities international students face in seeking employment within the U.S. public relations industry
PDF
Revolution for the Lulz, or, An exploration of protest in the age of new media
PDF
The evolution of sustainability: a public relations and business argument
PDF
A night at the opera: Mario Draghi, the European sovereign debt crisis and communications at the edge of the world
PDF
The effects of corporate social responsibility one employee engagement
PDF
Case study on Chinese heavy industry companies' community relations in U.S.: a comparison between corporate effort and media representation
PDF
Fast fashion meets luxe: a case study of the brand strategy and consumer perceptions of Forever 21
PDF
Generating valuable content for a destination in order to reach a new generation of travelers
PDF
Are public relations firms ready to lead in the new communication normal? the changing agency landscape and PR’s shifting roles
PDF
A critical look at organic farming and positioning of organic products in the American market
PDF
For the love of the game and community: evaluating professional athletes' charitable giving
PDF
Digital impact: the impact of mobile digital technology on live music events and its influence on marketing, branding and public relations professionals
PDF
Hydraulic fracturing and social media: getting the “fracking” message across
Asset Metadata
Creator
Whittaker, Christina J.
(author)
Core Title
The gamification of corporate responsibility
School
Annenberg School for Communication
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Strategic Public Relations
Publication Date
05/04/2015
Defense Date
04/30/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
corporate responsibility,gamification,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tenderich, Burghardt (
committee chair
), Kahn, Gabriel (
committee member
), Thorson, Kjerstin (
committee member
)
Creator Email
christinawhittaker88@gmail.com,cjwhitta@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-567349
Unique identifier
UC11300985
Identifier
etd-WhittakerC-3432.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-567349 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WhittakerC-3432.pdf
Dmrecord
567349
Document Type
Thesis
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Whittaker, Christina J.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
corporate responsibility
gamification