University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Not being bad is not good enough: why companies need to be proactively doing good through CSR initiatives

(USC Thesis Other)

Not being bad is not good enough: why companies need to be proactively doing good through CSR initiatives

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

NOT BEING BAD IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH:
WHY COMPANIES NEED TO BE PROACTIVELY DOING GOOD THROUGH CSR
INITIATIVES
By Irina Ortega

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 2019

Ortega ii
Table of Contents

List of Figures iii
Abstract iv
I. Introduction 1
II. Background 3
A. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 4
B. Cause-related Marketing (CRM) 8
C. Comparison of CSR and CRM 13
D. Other Related Terms 14
E. Issues with CSR Initiatives (Critics Perspective) 16

III. Financial Perspective 22
A. Financial Risks 22
B. Financial Benefits 24

IV. It All Comes Down to Measurement 32
A. Overview 32
B. Effective Measurement Tools 34
C. CSR Measurement is Not a Lost Cause 35

V. The Role of Advertising 36
A. Overview 36
B. Advertising Used For Good 37
C. Negatives of Advertising 40

VI. Why The Topic Is Relevant Today 42
A. Generational Changes 42
B. Cultural Changes 64
C. Benefits for Companies 72

VII. The Path to Sustainable Impact 75

Bibliography 77

Appendices
Appendix A: Industry Interviews 97

Ortega iii

List of Figures

Figure 1: UN Sustainable Development Goals
Figure 2: Pixability Growth of Cause-Related Ads Among the Top 100 Brands
Figure 3: Givewith Case Study
Figure 4: Barbie #MoreRoleModels Campaign Case Study
Figure 5: MTV “Enough” Campaign Case Study
Figure 6: Camara Education Case Study
Figure 7: Warner Bros. Entertainment WB Good Case Study

Ortega iv

Abstract
The idea of doing good is a term often used synonymously with Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR). Companies often use their corporate donations as justification for doing
good, but is it really enough to be classified as CSR? These corporations are generally hesitant to
fully commit to integrated CSR programming because of potential concerns, such as
measurement and financial issues. However, these issues shouldn’t hinder them from expanding
their CSR initiatives. Moreover, consumers are demanding that companies do more in their CSR
initiatives than ever before due to generational and societal changes. Some companies have
already found new ways of approaching CSR, including through advertising, but many are still
on the edge of fully integrating CSR into their businesses. By re-evaluating the idea of doing
good and what it means in business and to society, companies will soon realize they have fallen
short of CSR’s purpose by only making simple cash donations. Many companies are limiting
their CSR efforts and are only scratching the surface of the potential impact this business
strategy can have on society, the environment, and business in general. Corporations need to step
away from traditional philanthropic strategies and turn the focus toward sustainable and
impactful CSR initiatives that continually do good for the communities in which they operate.
The goal of this thesis is to examine the concept of doing good, address common issues with
CSR, explain why there is a significant need for companies to do more, and show how
companies can do just that.
Ortega 1
I. INTRODUCTION
What is “doing good?” Seems like a simple enough question. We’re taught to do good
from a very young age, but we have no idea what that actually means. As kids, our definition of
doing good might consist of telling the truth, not getting in fights with siblings, or getting good
grades in school. As adults, our idea of doing good changes. It might consist of things like
throwing change in a Salvation Army red kettle, marching in a women’s rights rally in Los
Angeles, volunteering time at a local animal shelter, or educating new voters on the
fundamentals of democracy. The concept of doing good seems to be everywhere. It’s such an
intriguing concept that an entire TV show was created based on it. The show follows four main
characters in their struggle to define what it means to do good in a place where it matters the
most—the afterlife. (If you aren’t watching NBC’s The Good Place, you’re seriously missing
out.) The truth is—a universal definition of doing good doesn’t exist. “It’s about making [doing
good] a part of your mindset both in your individual life and your work life, said Jenna Greene,
Founder of FORWARD COLLECTIVE. USC Annenberg Professor Laura Min Jackson defines
the notion as, “contributing what I can to make the world a better place so that when I leave this
world, it’s slightly improved from where it was when I [first] came.” To Kelly Wilson, Director
of Corporate Social Responsibility at Warner Bros. Entertainment, doing good means,
“understanding the audiences and communities that you affect as an [individual] and a business
and making sure to be taking care of those communities.” Doing good is, “not always thinking
about yourself,” said USC Annenberg Professor Matthew Leveque. “It means trying to do things
that are going to be beneficial and impactful to those around you—either those that you love and
love you also or those that you don’t even know.” To Janine Grey, Social Purpose Associate at
Golin, doing good simply means “doing no harm."
Ortega 2
As you can see, the concept is deeply personal and relative to each person. I can’t sit here
and give you a definitive answer of what doing good means. I can only tell you what I know.
Hopefully, it somehow helps shape your own idea of the concept. I know that doing good is
usually done for the benefit of others. I know that doing good usually requires a community to do
good for. I know that doing good requires you to use your resources (e.g. time, skills,
connections). In short, doing good to me means contributing your resources, whatever they may
be, to better the communities around you. There are numerous factors that influence a person’s
perception of the concept, but that’s the beauty of it: we are all free to define “doing good”
however we’d like to.
The real issue of defining what doing good means comes when we try to determine what
constitutes doing good business. To most decision makers in the corporate world, good business
is all about producing financial returns. Milton Friedman was a firm believer of this argument. In
his now widely known article published in the New York Times, Friedman argued that the only
social responsibility businesses had was to increase profits for shareholders (Friedman). There is
some validity to this argument, but doing good business should go beyond that. Don’t get lost in
the motions of the corporate environment and forget about what’s important. To me, doing good
business means creating an impact on society and the environment through a company’s business
practices. This impact can be anything from creating programs that serve local communities to
implementing environmentally friendly production standards.
It’s evident that for-profit companies are now trying to do more corporate social
responsibility (CSR) work, and that’s great, but they need to do much more than just cut a few
checks for charity. The traditional notion of corporate philanthropy is dead. It’s time for
corporations to get creative and strategic with their CSR initiatives. Companies need to be going
Ortega 3
beyond traditional philanthropic activities and start working directly with the communities that
their businesses are a part of— doing something positive that the company arguably doesn’t have
to do. It’s time to look beyond short-term goals and integrate sustainable CSR initiatives within
companies. It’s time to do more than just not be bad. Frankly, there’s no excuse anymore.
Corporations need to step up and step out from behind their checkbooks.
The purpose of this paper is to help business professionals and consumers understand
why for-profit corporations need to be more strategic and creative in their CSR initiatives.
Specifically, this paper aims to explain why companies must commit to proactive and sustainable
CSR initiatives as a common business practice. This research is necessary in order to show why
CSR must to continue to evolve in order to truly fulfill its goal of providing economic, societal
and environmental benefits to stakeholders. Through secondary and primary research, including
interviews with experts, this paper hopes to explain why traditional philanthropy is no longer
enough.
II. BACKGROUND
Clarifying what the social impact space is can be extremely confusing. It has evolved so
much over the years and with it comes new meaning and new ways to describe concepts and
strategies. Confusion over terms from the social impact space is evident, especially when it
comes to defining CSR (Keys et al.; Epstein-Reeves, “So You Call This CSR?”). There has yet
to be a universally accepted definition of the term which makes it challenging to actually classify
CSR initiatives. Not having a standard definition creates confusion between industries, among
companies, and with the average consumer. In the United States, CSR is often thought to be
Cause-related Marketing (CRM), Corporate Philanthropy, or Community Relations/Outreach
(Epstein-Reeves, “So You Call This CSR?”). The list can go on, but there is a definite need for
Ortega 4
clarity as people often use the terms interchangeably. Thus, it’s important to understand the
differences between some of these terms to prevent further confusion within the CSR industry.
A. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
1. History of CSR
In the U.S., the concept of CSR has been around since the 1800s most notably in the form
of traditional philanthropy (Brønn and Vrioni 208). Businessmen like John D. Rockefeller laid
the foundation of philanthropy during this era (Visser 1). All businesses had to do was donate
money to charity to be considered to be practicing CSR. As corporations began to develop at a
faster pace, the U.S. government took on the responsibility of “correcting social behavior of big
corporations” (Mullerat, “International CSR” 67). If businesses could balance out any negative
effects on society that resulted from their actions with philanthropy, there was no need for
government regulation. Businessmen began searching for creative ways to prevent government
regulation, and they soon saw philanthropy as the solution. There was really no strategy behind
it. They gave just a couple of dollars to one charity and maybe a couple hundred to another —
nothing more, nothing less. At the time, there was no societal pressure for companies to give to
charity and only the companies and businessmen that could afford to did (Brønn and Vrioni 208).
Not much thought went into the defining the concept, and for years this was all CSR was. To
those companies who continue to hide behind philanthropy and call it doing good CSR work,
leave that mindset behind where it belongs—in the 1800s. Philanthropy is no longer enough.
Corporate responsibility to society extends far beyond that now.
The U.S government began exploring business’s role in society more towards the end of
the 19th century by implementing new laws focused on work-site safety, child labor and
workers’ rights (Mullerat, “CSR:A European Perspective” 14). However, the concept of CSR
Ortega 5
truly came to life during the 20th century as business professionals, along with the U.S.
government, began to seriously contemplate a corporation’s responsibility to society. The U.S.
Supreme Court made a bold statement in 1906 by declaring a corporation to be “a creature of the
state” in which “it is assumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public” (Mullerat,
“International CSR” 67). A poll conducted by Fortune magazine in 1946 which explored the
social responsibility of businessmen—clearly gender equality was not an issue yet—is further
proof that the issue continued to weigh heavily on the business industry 40 years after the
Supreme Court ruling (Carroll, “CSR: Evolution” 270). The poll revealed that a staggering 93.5
percent of respondents agreed that their business responsibilities included more than increasing
profits (Carroll, “CSR: Evolution” 270).
The modern concept of CSR finally started to take shape during the 1950s thanks to the
work of scholars and business professionals. Some of the most notable contributions came from
Howard R. Bowen, who many people claim to be the father of corporate social responsibility
(Kolb 509; Carroll, “CSR: Evolution” 270; Morrison and Bridwell 144). Bowen defined the
social responsibility of businessmen as “the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies,
to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of
objectives and values of our society” (qtd. Carroll, “CSR: Evolution” 270). Bowen argued that
large corporations assumed power and decision-making capabilities that resulted in actions that
directly or indirectly affected many citizens in society (Carroll, “CSR: Evolution” 269). It was a
turning point for CSR as Bowen turned the spotlight on corporations and held them accountable
for their actions. Keith Davis soon became a prominent name in CSR discussions in the 1960s as
he expounded on his take on social responsibility. Davis argued that social responsibility should
be viewed from a managerial context and referred to the concept as “businessmen’s decisions
Ortega 6
and actions taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm’s direct economic or technical
interest” (70). Davis pushed boundaries as he began to explore the benefits of social
responsibility by arguing in favor of the potential economic value it could provide for a firm. In
short, he believed that being socially responsible could be good for business—a continuing
debate among the CSR industry.
Archie Carroll, a scholar and business management author, delivered the first widely
accepted definition of CSR in the 1970s that continues to be used today (Visser 1). Carroll
defined CSR as a four-part framework in which “corporate social responsibility encompasses the
economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that society has of
organizations at a given point in time” (qtd. Carroll, “CSR: Evolution” 283; Visser 1). Carroll’s
framework soon became known as the Pyramid of CSR. It would go on to help set the CSR
standard for American business. The first code of CSR, the Sullivan Principles, was also
developed during this era as well as the Committee for Economic Development’s (CED)
publication Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations (Carroll, “CSR: Evolution” 274;
Visser 1). The ‘70s were a significant time for CSR, and you might find a correlation between
what society was dealing with at the time. The end of the 20th century reflected the fact that
businesses were beginning to assume a broader range of social responsibilities. The impact of
CSR was especially evident in the ‘90s as more companies started to embrace CSR practices
wholeheartedly. Smaller companies such as Patagonia, the Body Shop and Ben & Jerry’s used
CSR as a foundation to build their companies. In the ‘90s Patagonia opened an environmental
friendly distribution center and succeeded in making all garments out of 100 percent organic
cotton (Patagonia). The Body Shop partnered with organizations such as Friends of the Earth and
Amnesty International to advocate for social and environmental causes (Purkayastha and
Ortega 7
Fernando 3-4). Lastly, Ben & Jerry’s was one of the first companies to audit its social
performance during the ‘90s (Daniels Fund Ethics Initiative 3). Larger companies, such as Levi
Strauss & Co., weren’t afraid to embrace the CSR approach either. They began to build
reputations for being socially responsible. Levi Strauss & Co. became the first multi-national
apparel company to create standards for vendors and factories that focused on environment,
safety, health and labor rights issues (Levi Strauss). Many other companies followed in Levi
Strauss & Co.’s footsteps over the years. The 20th century ultimately brought new meaning and
legitimacy to the relatively unheard of CSR term.
The 21st Century met CSR with relatively open arms. It continued to be a popular topic
of conversation among the business world, although there were very few theoretical
contributions to the concept. CSR was more of a foundation to explore similar topics such as
stakeholder theory, sustainability and business ethics (Carroll, “CSR: Evolution” 284). However,
the 21st Century continues to uncover a plethora of empirical research relating to CSR ( Jones
and Murrell 59; Luo and Bhattacharya 1; Peloza 53). Society is shifting yet again and the
business industry reflects it. Roughly 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies are implementing
CSR programming (Luo and Bhattacharya 1). Starbucks recently established its social impact
goals for the 2020s and a number of CSR action steps to achieve them. The company has
committed to creating employment opportunities by hiring 10,000 refugees globally and 25,000
veterans and military spouses by 2020 (Starbucks). Moreover, Coca-Cola is continuing with its
5by20 initiative, a commitment to economically empower women entrepreneurs, by providing
access to opportunities such as financing, mentoring, and business skills training (The Coca-Cola
Company, “2016 Sustainability Report”). We have still yet to see what lies ahead for this
Ortega 8
concept of CSR, but time will only tell.
2. Defining CSR
What started as a theoretical concept has now turned into a strategic business approach.
Today, CSR can be defined as “a business approach that contributes to sustainable development
by delivering economic, social and environmental benefits for all stakeholders” (Financial
Times; Pontefract). CSR has now become an umbrella term that encompasses a company’s
attempt to do good for society. Its purpose is to inspire companies to be more aware of their
impact outside of traditional business as Bowen so adamantly argued back in the ‘50s. It’s great
that there are a variety of definitions to choose from, but it’s about time the industry agrees on
one definition. It took 70 years to achieve the first real definition of CSR, so what are we
supposed to do, wait another 70 until we all agree on the next one? A changing society shouldn’t
be an excuse to not agree on a definition. Society influences how CSR is implemented—not how
it’s defined. We’re missing out on fulfilling the goal of CSR—to create positive impact—by not
establishing one agreeable definition.
B. Cause-related Marketing (CRM)
1. Defining CRM
Cause-related marketing (CRM) is defined as tying a company, products, services or
content to a cause with the aim of giving support to charities (Brønn and Vrioni 207-208). It’s a
marketing strategy that’s beneficial to both parties involved—the corporation and the recipient.
Nonprofits are given a chance to acquire new funding and raise awareness while the corporations
can increase sales or brand equity (qtd. in Natarajan et al. 249-257). CRM is a way to advocate
CSR through marketing communication in collaborations with nonprofits. American Express
first introduced the world to CRM in 1983 with its campaign to raise money for the restoration of
Ortega 9
the Statue of Liberty (Lellahom). American Express pledged monetary donations in return for
consumer actions, such as credit card transactions and the opening of new card accounts
(Stearns). The campaign raised roughly $1.7 million and increased card usage by almost 30
percent in just three months (Gottlieb; Stearns). The Statue of Liberty’s restoration was estimated
to cost $39 million, but thanks to companies like American Express, the restoration was
completed in 1986 (“Drive for Statue of Liberty Nears $100 Million”; National Park Service).
The company gained national recognition for this new strategy that it became defined as cause-
related marketing, so much so that it would later copyright the term. American Express set itself
apart by deviating away from traditional methods of donating and ultimately created an entirely
new method of corporate giving. The Statue of Liberty campaign established the modern concept
of CRM that we know today and set the standard for others.
The number of corporations using CRM continues to increase. Sixty-six percent of
companies participated in CRM activities in 2010, and since then CRM has grown into a $2
billion industry as of 2017 (Fritz, What Every Nonprofit ; PR Week/Barkley). The key factor to
understanding CRM is acknowledging that how it’s implemented varies depending on the
industry and the company. In the case of American Express, CRM was used in a way that
directly connected consumers to a product and service (e.g., credit cards, bank accounts, travel
packages, etc.). Warner Bros. Entertainment, on the other hand, does not use CRM in the
traditional sense. The company can’t tie a cause to an actual product because its “product” is
entertainment. Instead, Warner Bros. can use its content, such as characters, to carry out cause-
related marketing activities. Warner Bros. Consumer Products (WBCP), in collaboration with
generationOn, kicked off its Scooby-Doo ‘DOO GOOD’ campaign in 2018, which took a
different approach to CRM in that it wasn’t tying a cause to a physical product (Warner Bros.
Ortega 10
Consumer Products). Instead, the company took some of its most beloved characters, Scooby-
Doo and the Mystery Inc. friends, and used them to encourage kids to engage in socially
responsible activities that benefit their communities. Warner Bros. managed to develop a creative
use of its resources that ultimately created social change in communities. CRM comes in many
different forms, including:
● Buy One Give One (BOGO)
The BOGO method has been increasingly popular in recent years thanks to Blake
Mycoskie, founder of TOMs. The method is simple. It involves businesses
committing to donating goods which create social impact (e.g. shoes, glasses,
vaccines, etc.) in exchange of the sale of designated items from a shopper (Cone
Communications,“Top 10 Types of Cause Promotions”). Consumers buy one item
and another item, which is meant to create social impact, is given to someone in need.
Businesses will achieve the social impact aspect with the help of nonprofit
collaborators. Today, businesses, such as Warby Parker (case follows) and This Bar
Saves Lives, are now incorporating this methodology into the core of their businesses.
The Buy One, Give One method is ingenious, but I would urge consumers to proceed
with caution. It can be difficult to track the actual social impact and often the cost of
the item donated is not comparable to the cost of the item purchased (Cone
Communications, “Top 10 Types of Cause Promotions”).
○ Warby Parker - Buy a Pair, Give a Pair
Eyeglass retailer Warby Parker collaborates with multiple partners, including
Vision Springs, to bring vision care to more than 50 countries around the
world (Warby Parker). The retailer’s goal is to provide a pair of glasses to
Ortega 11
someone in need for each pair sold by the company. Warby Parker employs
two methods to achieve this goal. The first involves teaching men and women
how to administer basic eye exams as well as provide them with an
employment opportunity to sell glasses at an affordable price This method
describes the majority of Warby Parker’s distribution. The company also
employs a direct giving method in which it partners with schools to provide
glasses and vision care to students (Warby Parker).
● Proud Supporter:
Consumer action or a product sale isn’t necessary while using this method.
Essentially, it can be thought of as the advertisement of a corporation’s philanthropy.
It involves a corporation making a flat donation (e.g. money or physical goods),
usually a large amount, to a nonprofit organization or cause. The main goal of this
method is to help corporation’s illustrate their commitment to a cause. Often you’ll
actually hear or see the words “proud supporter” in the actual advertisements
developed for these campaigns using this method (Cone Communications, “Top 10
Types of Cause Promotions”). Corporations with a larger budget for advertising are
more likely to employ this method (Cone Communications, “Top 10 Types of Cause
Promotions”). Super Bowl season or Olympic Games are usually the time that these
types of campaigns become extremely popular. Companies take it upon themselves to
spend millions of dollars just to let viewers know that they’re doing good. It’s not
exactly the best use of money if you’re truly trying to make a social impact. The
biggest downside to this method is its lack of consumer engagement. However, these
Ortega 12
ads can be resurrected or used for longer periods of time because they are not directly
tied to sales.
○ Jeep + United Service Organizations - Operation Safe Return
Jeep has had a long history with the U.S. military, tracing back to the 1940s,
and has continued to maintain that relationship with its USO partnership
(Jeep; “USO and Jeep®”). The company established the S.A.F.E. Return fund
to provide support for troops as they come back home from active duty. Jeep
is able to provide vehicles to USO centers, aid for the reintegration process of
troops, including homecoming celebrations, and support for the USO’s
medical care programs (“USO and Jeep®”). The company applied the Proud
Supporter method during the 2013 Super Bowl to highlight the work they’ve
done through Operation S.A.F.E Return. Frankly, these millions of dollars
could have been used in a more impactful way, but it was an effective way to
raise awareness of Jeep’s partnership with the USO.
These are just a few of the sub-categories of CRM used most often today. CRM has become an
increasingly popular CSR strategy and marketing method. The number of published research
articles on the topic has more than doubled since the world was exposed to it in 1983 (Natarajan
et al. 249). Although, one thing must be understood: a strategy that may benefit one company
may not necessarily work for others. It comes down to understanding the needs of the company
and its industry. CRM is not perfect, but it continues to be an effective method to support
nonprofits—not to mention it entices skilled employees, positively influences financials, and
improves consumer behavior as well (qtd. Vanhamme et al. 260).

Ortega 13
C. Comparison of CSR and CRM
It’s easy to think of CSR and CRM as the same when both terms are similar in the sense
that they have the same goal of creating a positive impact on society. However, CRM cannot be
synonymous with CSR. The critical difference between the two is the fact that CSR encompasses
CRM. “CRM alone cannot fully embody CSR,” argue Sheikh and Beise-Zee (28). CSR is the
overarching business practice while CRM is a communications tool used to signify CSR practice
(Sheikh and Beise-Zee 27). “CSR is a bigger strategic commitment. Cause-related marketing is a
subset of it, but CSR is not a subset of cause-related marketing. CSR is the overarching, ‘What is
the good this organization wants to do in the world? How do we apply our resources to do
that?’,” says Professor Jackson. CRM is CSR in action.
There can be a negative perception of CRM which could push away potential
stakeholders, especially when it comes to what some deem “purchase-triggered donations”
(Stole, “Philanthropy as Public Relations” 27). This type of CRM practice involves a company
donating a specific amount of a products price to charity (Stole, “Cause-Related Marketing”).
The American Express campaign mentioned above was the first of many campaigns to utilize
this practice. This CRM sub-category tends to be what people associate most with the CRM
approach, and that association can be problematic (Stole, “Philanthropy as Public Relations” 27).
Additionally, some critics believe CRM is only being used by large companies to take advantage
of a cause for the sake of business promotion without explicitly stating what the business
objectives are (Sheikh and Beise-Zee 29; Stole, “Philanthropy as Public Relations” 29).
Alternatively, CSR appears to have a more positive impact on consumers as opposed to CRM
(qtd. Sheikh and Beise-Zee 29). Using the two terms interchangeably can end up confusing those
that don’t know the difference. Even worse, used synonymously, the words can create a
Ortega 14
disconnect between consumers and the company. That should be reason enough to distinguish it
from CSR.
D. Other Related Terms
1. Defining Corporate Philanthropy
Corporate philanthropy is probably the only term used more often than CSR in the social
impact space. It is often mistaken for CSR because of its similarities—making it difficult to
distinguish between the two. The main similarity between the two concepts is the fact that they
both use corporate resources to provide support for the communities in which they operate.
However, there are a few distinctions between CSR and corporate philanthropy when you take a
closer look. Philanthropy in its most basic form can be defined as the practice of using wealth to
drive social change (Baines). Corporate philanthropy undertakes an important role in the
nonprofit community, but it is not CSR. “Philanthropy is specific to check writing—giving
money or even in-kind donations,” said Grey. CSR is much more than making financial
contributions. CSR involves a company’s business practices and possibly even the entire
business model. Corporate philanthropy is commonly mistaken for CSR because many of the
times it is incorporated into a CSR plan. Like CRM, corporate philanthropy should not be
synonymous with CSR. Yes, both CSR and corporate philanthropy are striving to bring about
social change, but using the terms synonymously limits CSR’s potential. CSR consists of more
than setting aside a financial contribution. It’s about fully committing a business to go beyond
what’s required and invest its resources in a way that leaves an impact on society and the
environment.

Ortega 15
2. Defining Community Relations/Outreach
Community relations/outreach refers to the relationship between a company and the
community in which it operates (“Community Relations"). Specifically, it refers to creating and
maintaining that relationship in ways that are mutually beneficial to each party (PublicCity PR).
The goal of community relations/outreach is to establish a company as a good corporate citizen.
Community relations/outreach can come in two forms—communication or business activities.
From a communications standpoint, community relations/outreach often involves educating the
public on the values of a company and what it stands for. It might also include sharing what the
company is doing with its communities. In terms of business activities, volunteerism is usually
what most people define as community relations/outreach when it comes to corporations.
Community relations/outreach practiced alone is not CSR. It’s only one aspect of CSR.
3. Corporate Citizenship
Last but not least, corporate citizenship is almost always associated with CSR. Corporate
citizenship and CSR are very similar in meaning, so similar in fact, that corporate citizenship
could be considered an extension of CSR. Corporate citizenship is centered on the idea that
companies are active citizens in society and, therefore, have a number of social responsibilities to
fulfill (Chen, “Corporate Citizenship”). “Corporate citizenship is...integrally linked to the social,
ecological, political, and economic impacts that derive from the company’s business model,”
argued Sandra Waddock (qtd. Kolb 456). Similarly, CSR is “a self-regulating business model
that helps a company be socially accountable — to itself, its stakeholders, and the public” (Chen,
“Corporate Social Responsibility”). CSR and corporate citizenship have the same goal to act in a
socially responsible manner. However, corporate citizenship extends that goal to include political
Ortega 16
and environment responsibilities as well (Visser et al. 85). In the next few years, it will not be a
surprise if most people choose to utilize the term corporate citizenship rather than CSR.
E. Issues with CSR Initiatives (Critics Perspective)
1. Skepticism
Despite the growing appeal of the CSR industry, there’s still a strong possibility of
fostering a disconnect between consumer and company. That disconnect can easily be traced
back to skepticism. Consumers are already skeptical as it is. About 70 percent of consumers are
skeptical of product advertisements, stating that these ad claims are often exaggerated or
deceitful (qtd. Joireman et al. 86). However, when tying a corporation to a social cause they care
about, their skepticism reaches new highs (qtd. Brønn and Vrioni 217; Vaccaro). According to a
2016 Nielsen survey, only 39 percent of the general public believe that companies are more
committed to CSR than previous years (McAllister). Consumers are often left wondering what
the real motive behind CSR programs are. The Center for Business in Society revealed that 80
percent of its survey respondents believe that roughly 70 percent of CSR programs are
implemented to benefit corporate reputation (Vaccaro). One reason for this skepticism may be
the fact that marketing and communications teams are usually involved in CSR initiatives which
tend to spark suspicion. From the outside looking in, it doesn’t seem great that the teams who are
responsible for selling a product and for tailoring a message are in charge of CSR programming.
To consumers, having these two departments involved may make it appear that the only reason
companies engage in CSR is for the sole benefit of the company—whether that be in terms of
economic gain or building a reputation (Vaccaro). However, there’s a perfectly reasonable
explanation for having marketing and communications teams involved. Creating and
implementing CSR initiatives is hard work. There’s no doubt about that. CSR work requires
Ortega 17
people with the right communications skills that can get other people to support the cause they're
advocating for. Who better to have on the team than marketing and communications
professionals? If you have a great product or service that could benefit others, wouldn’t you want
someone who knows how to do that well? Yes, there will always be companies out there that use
marketing and communication skills to deceive the public about their CSR work—looking at you
Volkswagen. However, for most companies with CSR initiatives, it’s not about having a “Hey,
look at me!” attitude. It’s about being able to share and connect with consumers based on causes
that they may care about.
Most experts would argue that skepticism should be avoided altogether since it negatively
influences consumer attitudes toward a company and consumer intent to purchase (Elving 278;
Brønn and Vironi 217). However, it’s all about changing your perception of the term. Don't think
of skepticism as an entirely bad thing. It can be healthy to a certain degree. A skeptic is defined
by the Oxford Dictionary as “a person who is inclined to question the truth of facts” (qtd. Brønn
and Vironi 216). Why should that be discouraged? Everyone should be a little skeptical because
it drives us to ask questions. It’s from asking questions that we get creative thoughts, new ideas,
and better solutions. Companies need only one thing to avoid getting bombarded with too much
skepticism from consumers—research. Before implementing any CSR initiatives involving
campaign, know your target audience and their level of skepticism. It’s that simple. According to
Brønn and Vrioni, it's situational, meaning that those doubts can change (216). If consumers are
wondering what’s in it for your company. Tell them. If they’re questioning whether or not the
money will really go to charity partners. Show them. Tap into that consumer skepticism and use
that to strengthen and build new relationships with consumers. So, don’t be afraid of
skepticism—welcome it.
Ortega 18
2. Distrust of Corporations
A 2018 Gallup poll revealed that there is a growing distrust between American
consumers and corporations. Only 10 percent of respondents noted that they had a “great deal” of
confidence in big business (Gallup). America is not the only country affected by the growing
distrust. Trust in business has decreased in many global markets as well (Edelman, “2018 Trust
Barometer” 11). Those are some alarming figures for business but more so for the CSR industry.
They reveal that despite the growing popularity of social responsibility, consumers are still
hesitant to fully believe in the support that comes from corporations. Much of the criticism about
CSR stems from this distrust of corporations. Critics argue that CSR initiatives are often used by
companies to mask unpleasant business activities, to exploit a cause to improve brand image, or
greenwash products or services for economic gain (Pontefract, “Faking CSR”; Sheikh and Beise-
Zee 29). Many people are calling into question the so-called “hidden agendas” of CSR programs.
Critics note that corporations have been known to use CSR activities to deceive
consumers and one of the most popular ways to do that is through greenwashing (Aggarwal and
Kayadan 61; Stier). Greenwashing is “a practice followed by organizations in which
unsubstantiated or misleading claims are made of the environmental and social attributes of a
product, service or the company as a brand” (Aggarwal and Kadyan 61). The Volkswagen
emissions scandal is arguably the most notable case of corporate deception to occur within the
past decade as a result of greenwashing (Parloff). The German car giant strategically positioned
itself to consumers as the maker of clean diesel vehicles with a full-fledged marketing plan in the
U.S. between 2006 and 2015 (Parloff). Volkswagen’s goal was to push sales of clean diesel cars
to help create a competitive advantage in its market (Hotten; Parloff). News broke of the scandal
in September 2015 when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discovered a software in
Ortega 19
the diesel engines that essentially allowed Volkswagen to cheat emissions test in the U.S.
(Hotten; Parloff). The scandal rocked the CSR industry. It turns out the diesel engines were far
from what all environmentalists hoped for. They emitted illegal emissions levels that contributed
to respiratory disease and smog (Parloff). It was the beginning of a tumultuous multi-year
scandal for the car company that so many had respected. It’s scandals like this that fuel the
criticism of the CSR industry. Volkswagen clearly wasn’t committed to being socially
responsible. Instead, economic motivations fueled their strategy, and they did whatever it took to
increase sales. This scandal is a stark reminder of what CSR can be like at its worst.
Critics are also noticing that CSR activities are being reported more often by companies
in the wake of scandal (Nilsson and Wicksell 20). Take Wells Fargo for example. The popular
bank has had its fair share of setbacks within the past few years after news broke of its fake-
account scandal in 2016 (Wattles et al.). According to reports, employees created millions of
unauthorized accounts without customer knowledge as a result of what employees deemed
“company pressure” (Wattles et al.). The scandal continued to unfold over the next two years.
The company had engaged in deceptive behavior, and fake accounts weren’t the only issues at
stake. The bank had engaged in many questionable and outright illegal activities which included
charging for unnecessary auto insurance, illegally repossessing cars, and modifying mortgages
without customer knowledge (Wattles et al.). In what is no doubt an attempt to clean up its brand
image, Wells Fargo’s corporate social responsibility head, John Campbell, released a statement
in conjunction with the company’s 2017 Wells Fargo Corporate Social Responsibility Report
(Wells Fargo). Campbell stated in the letter that the company would be ramping up its corporate
social responsibility efforts with the hopes of “integrating responsible business practices
throughout our global business operations” (Wells Fargo). It’s almost hard not to roll your eyes
Ortega 20
at this statement after knowing what type of business practices the bank engaged in over the past
few years. Clearly, Wells Fargo is hoping to use CSR efforts to sweep its undesirable business
practices under the rug. It’s easy to see why consumers have a difficult time trusting corporations
with a scandal like this, but they shouldn’t let it affect their entire view of the industry.
Critics give in to this distrust of corporations and use it as an excuse to discredit all CSR
initiatives. Should a few bad apples really spoil the whole bunch? Not all companies are out
there using CSR to cover up their messes and exploit social causes. Many companies, like
Warner Bros. and LEGO, are legitimately using CSR to service their communities. As a result,
they’re leaving a positive impact in the world. Companies will continue to fall short, regardless
of the CSR industry's ability to do good. That’s just life. Although the growing distrust seems
insurmountable, CSR isn’t going anywhere. Instead of succumbing to distrust, companies need
to be using it as a wake-up call. Consumers are sick of being deceived.
3. Cause Fatigue
Is there such a thing as too many choices? In America, we’d like to think the answer to
that question is no because we have abundant choices as consumers. Different types of food to
eat. Different types of clothing brands to wear. Different types of sodas to drink—my god, the
number of soda choices is alarming. The number of choices we have are almost limitless and it
likely a result of an increase in access to information over the past 50 years thanks to technology
developments (Crowl; Purcell and Rainie) However, research shows that having too many
choices can be a serious problem, especially to consumers (Iyengar; Tugend). Being able to
choose from a long list of options sounds like a great concept, but experts have found that
having too many choices can actually leave people in a paralyzed-like state, not knowing what to
do, while others may just decide not to act at all (Crowl; Iyengar; Porter). Choosing between
Ortega 21
options can be utterly exhausting. Think of the last time you tried to decide where to eat among a
group of friends.
What we’re noticing is that more consumers are showing signs of decision fatigue,
particularly when it comes to social causes (Crowl; Dua). The term social cause is starting to
become overused. Brands are continually jumping on the social cause bandwagon and consumers
are becoming completely overwhelmed. Consumers are playing a more active role in engaging
with brands that support social causes, but corporations are throwing so much marketing at these
consumers that they are being overwhelmed with choices (Crowl). The problem is that
consumers, especially the younger generations who place a high value on social responsibility,
are already sensitive to marketing as it is (Dua). Americans alone are exposed to roughly 5,000
ads in a single day. (qtd. Alton, “How Corporate Distrust”). According to a study conducted by
Cassandra, a group of cultural strategists and business intelligence experts, younger generations
are trying to distance themselves from marketing by consuming less of it (Dua).
Corporations can only expect more consumer fatigue as they continue to produce more
cause-related materials, but there’s still hope. Like skepticism, avoiding consumer fatigue comes
down to research. Know who you’re targeting and how they’re reacting to your content.
Corporations need to be actively monitoring consumer engagement and sentiment when any
CSR-related communications are distributed (Crowl). Start asking questions. Are consumers
reacting negatively to your cause-related marketing? Are they engaging with the content? Are
they supporting the cause? If you find that your target consumers are responding negatively to
something, don’t just throw more of the same material at them. Stop, reevaluate, and refocus
your strategy (Crowl). Research is going to allow corporations to understand their audience and
be able to deliver content they’ll enjoy and resonate with. That’s the key to avoiding consumer
Ortega 22
fatigue. You can’t force consumers to support a cause, but you can grab their attention—even if
it’s just for a brief moment. Therefore, corporations need to get creative in the way consumers
are communicated to and speak to them on a personal level. It’s all about focusing more on the
cause and less on the marketing, and building and maintaining that connection between cause
and consumer (Crowl; Dua).
4. Conclusion
It’s easy to dismiss the concept of CSR when you look at its faults, yet the CSR industry
continues to flourish despite all the criticism. Roughly 92 percent of the largest companies in the
world produced a CSR report in 2015—a 28 percent increase from 2005 (Meier and Cassar).
Moreover, Fortune Global 500 companies spend about $20 billion a year on activities related to
CSR (Meier and Cassar). Clearly, CSR has become a huge part of the business industry, and
that’s incredible seeing how modern CSR has only been around since the late 80s. That said,
there is always going to be opponents to the concept. Those that don’t see its worth and only care
to look at its faults. The professionals working in the CSR industry should use those critiques to
remain accountable. It’ll ensure that each CSR initiative implemented is the best it can be. Use
the criticism to understand what areas of CSR need work. Use it to see a new perspective of the
concept. It may just give you the motivation you need to prove the opponents of CSR wrong.
III. FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE
A. Financial Risks
CSR comes with potential risks—or so people like to believe. However, a closer look at
these so-called financial “risks” prove that, not only are they without real merit, but they
shouldn’t hold back companies from implementing CSR initiatives. The first issue that many
bring up regarding CSR is the fact that it isn’t always directly measurable. Sure, it can be tough
Ortega 23
to support a business initiative that’s difficult to evaluate. Why risk something if you don’t know
what the financial returns are? That’s the thing about CSR though—it’s not always directly
impacting financials. “There is a monetary value, but it doesn’t always translate dollar to dollar,”
expressed Professor Jackson. Most of the time CSR has an indirect financial impact, but it still
provides positive financial returns. Implementing CSR initiatives can also be seen as a risk
because it often takes a long period of time to see financial results. It's especially true of
community programs. Companies usually wait months before seeing any results from the
programs. Patience is critical in the CSR industry. It takes time and strategy to build a solid CSR
program.
There may be some risks to implementing CSR initiatives, but corporations are now
starting to realize that it’s an even bigger risk not to be socially responsible. The majority of
companies believed in the idea of social responsibility, but it was often put on the backburner
while they prioritized profit. That all changed in 2018 when Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock Inc.,
made a bold statement in his annual letter to CEOs titled “A Sense of Purpose.” In it, Fink
adamantly expressed that the future of business relies on social responsibility:
Indeed, the public expectations of your company have never been greater. Society is
demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper
over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance but also show how
it makes a positive contribution to society. Companies must benefit all of their
stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in
which they operate. Without a sense of purpose, no company, either public or private, can
achieve its full potential. It will ultimately lose the license to operate from key
stakeholders.
Ortega 24
Fink made it clear that in the future his company would think twice about lending money to
corporations that weren’t being socially responsible. Fink’s statement sent shockwaves
throughout the business industry because it came from the CEO of the world’s largest asset
manager. Fink wasn’t the only one to reconsider the influence of social responsibility on his
investments. According to the 2018 Cone/Porter Novelli Purpose Study, roughly 54 percent of
Americans want to invest in companies that place high importance on their role and value in
society (6). Moreover, BlackRock’s CEO condemned the “short-termism” that so many
companies operate within and stressed that business executives needed to start concentrating on
the long-term to maintain success (Fink). To understand the significance of the letter, you must
understand how unconventional it was. Coming from a company with a long history of
emphasizing profits, this letter was an incredible win for the CSR industry. Fink’s message
signified the dawn of a new era of business in which not being socially responsible was now a
liability. CSR is “no longer a ‘nice to have.’ It’s a must-have,” said Grey. Fink’s argument has
been echoed by multitudes of people around the world—everyone from top executives and
investors to consumers and academics (Edgecliff-Johnson). CSR is changing the traditional view
from which business has operated for centuries. All signs point to social responsibility as a
requirement for success. Therefore, companies must start fully incorporating socially responsible
business practices to achieve long-term growth. The success of their business depends on it.
B. Financial Benefits
Thanks to an increasing interest in CSR, this business approach is explored across many
areas of research. The most intriguing area of CSR research is how to determine the financial
benefits of being socially responsible. Luo and Bhattacharya argue that “a firm’s financial health
is the ultimate test for success or failure of any strategic initiative” (1). Business leaders tend to
Ortega 25
agree with the Friedman argument and stress that business’ only responsibility to society is to
make money (Friedman). Luckily, numerous studies have revealed CSR’s influence on different
areas of business which can, directly and indirectly, impact a company’s financial standing for
the better. They include everything from customer satisfaction and customer-company
identification to employee productivity and company morale (Becker-Olsen 47; Luo and
Bhattacharya 3; Sen and Bhattacharya 77). The financial benefits of CSR continue to be a
contentious topic, but in reality, there’s no reason for the debate. Companies have continued to
reap the financial benefits of CSR, sometimes without even realizing it. Yes, the benefits are
likely to take longer to identify, but they’re worth the wait. Let’s examine areas of business that
matter most to bottom-line oriented executives:
1. Customers
It’s no question that customer satisfaction is one of the most important areas of business.
You know that. I know that. Practically any person who’s ever bought something knows that.
Customers don’t want to waste time with a company or their products if it’s not going to satisfied
their needs—whatever they may be. Literature confirms that customer satisfaction can be a
leading factor in long-term profitability and market value as well as a key component to any
business strategy (Fornell et al. 4; Gruca and Rego 127; Luo and Bhattacharya 2) Now here’s
where things get interesting—Luo and Bhattacharya discovered a positive relationship between
CSR and market value by means of customer satisfaction (13-14). The connection is thought to
work in a chain-like pattern: CSR initiatives are implemented within a company → a more
favorable outlook among consumers is created (because it’s seen as a socially conscious
organization) → customer satisfaction is then likely to achieved → customer satisfaction then
increases company market share as a result of strong and loyal customer base (Luo and
Ortega 26
Bhattacharya, 15). In short, CSR helps create a pathway from customer satisfaction to increased
market value. CSR is not the end-all solution to achieving customer satisfaction or an increase in
a firm’s market value by any means. “You cannot hide behind CSR if your product quality is
poor,” argues Professor Jackson. “Consumers want quality before they want CSR.” However,
CSR can result in a significant and positive contribution to the process of gaining a competitive
advantage in the market.
As mentioned earlier, the socially conscious consumer directly affects a company’s
bottom line. Consumers are increasingly placing a higher importance on the social conscious of a
company as they make purchase decisions. The 2017 Cone Communications CSR study
uncovered that 87 percent of respondents said that if a company advocated for causes that
concerned them, they would be more likely to purchase a product or service from that company
(9). Consumers want to give their money to companies that are producing some benefit to
society. Why not give them the opportunity to do so? In the same study, Cone Communications
also uncovered that consumers are continually seeking out products that positively impact
society and the environment (12). I know many people who will deliberately go out of their way
to purchase products from beauty brands, such as LUSH, because of the company’s socially
responsible business practices. The fact that consumers are now willing to seek out these types of
products and services instead of just stumbling on them by chance is a sign of the change in
consumer mindsets. The influence of social responsibility on purchase decision is a clear
indicator of what companies need to do to keep the consumers happy. Consumers are thinking
twice about where they spend their money, so why not give them a good reason to spend money
on your company? Companies have ample opportunity to increase sales by providing consumers
with what they want—socially responsible products and services. It’s a simple way to achieve a
Ortega 27
triple bottom line. Attract and retain consumers while also doing good for society and the
environment. Still skeptical? Look at the growth that Unilever has experienced as a result of
making purpose a core business driver. According to Accenture Strategy’s report “To Affinity
and Beyond,” Unilever’s brands that are focused on sustainability, including Dove and Lipton,
are growing 50 percent faster than all other units (3). Even more astounding, these particular
brands account for 60 percent of Unilever’s growth (3). Moreover, the Project ROI report
revealed CSR has the potential to increase sales revenue by up to 20 percent (Rochlin et al. 3).
Companies need to stop being so hesitant to commit to CSR initiatives. The financial benefit of
being socially responsible is undeniable.
2. Employees
Another financial benefit of CSR is that it aids in the recruitment and retaining of
employees. Recruiting top talent and retaining them is ultimately going to help a company
achieve success. According to the Harvard Business Review, a high-performance employee can
provide 400 percent more productivity than the average employee (Willyerd). If you have the
most talented employees out there, your company is going to be able to deliver better results—
it’s that simple. The Reputation Institute reported that it’s becoming more difficult to attract top
talent, especially among younger generations such as Millennials, so attraction/retention efforts
need to be even more strategic (13). CSR can be a tool used to acquire these employees and keep
them satisfied with your company. The 2018 Cone/Porter Novelli Purpose Study revealed that 68
percent of Americans would work for a purpose-driven company that's focused on contributing
to society and the environment (6-7). CSR can give employees pride in their work by providing
them with the opportunity to do good.
Ortega 28
It makes employees feel good, and it drives employee engagement. It’s not that
employees who work at companies with good CSR are always satisfied or more engaged,
but I do believe employees tend to be more satisfied when they believe that their work
and their company does something of purpose. That’s increasingly important. (Jackson).
Additionally, CSR initiatives have been known to boost productivity—potentially up to 13
percent—within a company which can result in a financial gain (Murphy; Rochlin et al. 3).
Social responsibility has also become a significant factor in determining whether or not an
employee chooses to leave a job. Employee turnover shouldn’t be dismissed as just another part
of business. It can lead to significant financial loss for any corporation. Companies in the U.S.
spend roughly $160 billion a year as a result of employee turnover (Bonnie). Not only is
employee turnover an issue for HR, but it has also been known to affect operating costs
(Conerly) negatively. New employees require more work and more money. It’s a fact of life.
However, the time and money spent dealing with employee turnover can be easily reduced by
committing business to CSR. Rochlin et al. discovered that CSR practices have the potential to
decrease staff turnover rates by up to 50 percent (3). This strategy can provide employees with
the ultimate satisfaction of working for a company that is socially responsible. With so many
different factors affecting employee turnover as it is, don’t miss the opportunity to keep
employees happy with something as simple of CSR programming.
The workforce is changing as are the employees that are driving it. Employees, especially
the younger generations entering the workforce, are now evaluating companies based on whether
or not they strive to achieve a triple bottom line (Elsey).
If you look at the workforce and you see Millennials are coming into it as the baby
boomers are aging out, Millennial employees, in particular, want to work at companies
Ortega 29
where they get meaning from their work, and the organization is doing good. If you do
real CSR, you can use it as a way of becoming an employer of choice. (Jackson)
People now want to work for companies that create social impact (Epstein-Reeves, “Consumers
Overwhelmingly”). They want to be employed by companies that give their work purpose. CSR
can be the tool to attract and maintain them.
3. Reputation
Reputation is a company’s most valuable asset. Public perception can make or break an
organization. The Reputation Institute (RI) refers to this as reputation capital—or “the estimated
contribution that public perceptions add to the market value of a company” (Fombrun 7).
Positive reputations have often been known to produce positive financial returns (Peloza 56). A
strong reputation can also increase competitive advantage, customer loyalty, and employee
recruitment (Peloza 56). Beamery, a talent engagement software company, reported that more
than 80 percent of employees would leave their current position in favor of another company
with a better reputation (Slater). Reputation matters and is a key asset to any business. Every
year RI publishes its annual Global RepTrak 100, a report on the corporate reputation of
companies around the world. The top 10 companies in 2018 included LEGO, Google, and
Microsoft (Reputation Institute, “2018 Global RepTrak” 40). These companies with power-house
reputations also just so happen to have strong commitments to CSR. Coincidence? RI also
revealed that companies who are purpose driven and deliver a positive influence on society
would likely achieve a stronger reputation (26). “At a time when the public is looking to identify
with a company’s values, standing behind and delivering on your corporate purpose will elevate
reputation and drive stronger emotional connection,” wrote RI in its 2019 Macro-Trends in
Reputation report (49). Now more than ever, how a company practices CSR dictates the strength
Ortega 30
of its reputation and credibility. This business approach “creates a reputation that a firm is
reliable and honest” (qtd. Peloza 56). This then aids in its standing in the market. According to
RI’s Reputation and Financial Performance Report, 48 percent of a company’s market variation
can be traced to non-financial metrics, including social performance (Fombrun 1). CSR is also a
crucial factor that influences a consumer’s impression of a company (Peloza 62). Additionally,
CSR indirectly aids Corporate Financial Performance (CFP) through its ability to build and
strengthen a company’s reputation (Park 865; Peters and Mullen 5-6). Reputation has always
been a critical aspect of any company, but now we see how much CSR can positively influence
it. Although this may not be direct evidence that CSR is financially beneficial, it’s clear that it’s
a very influential factor.
4. Conclusions
With all that said, financial incentive should not be driving motive for practicing CSR.
That defeats the whole purpose of it. Corporations shouldn’t be using this business strategy just
to gain a profit. Consumers will see right through that, and it is a one-way ticket to failure. There
has to be some genuine interest, connection or motivation between the cause and company for it
to be successful. In a perfect world money would come second behind social impact, but
unfortunately, that’s not quite the case. Luckily, CSR has been proven to be economically
beneficial. A company’s willingness to incorporate CSR into its business strategy can lead to
fruitful financial returns. Studies have revealed a positive relationship between CFP and CSR
(Peloza 55). According to a recent report published by IO Sustainability and the Lewis Institute
for Social Innovation at Babson College, fully integrated CSR practices have been proven to
positively support financial returns relating to share price and market value, sales and revenue,
human resources, and reputation and brand (Rochlin et al. 3).
Ortega 31
CSR has been proven to have a positive effect on a company’s financials, yet there is still
hesitation to adopt the concept fully into the core of many corporations. Why is that? It
completely baffles me that companies still use finances as an excuse not to implement CSR
initiatives or even consider growing them. Overall, CSR is a good business investment, and the
world now expects it. A whopping 79 percent of U.S. citizens expect companies to continue to
improve their CSR initiatives—something that can easily be done by getting more involved in
the community instead of writing a check to solve a problem (Cone Communications, “2017
CSR Study” 6). With so many companies implementing CSR programs, it’s going to be
extremely difficult to differentiate themselves from the competition. Being proactive and more
involved in the local communities is the perfect solution. “Profit, in other words, flows from the
pursuit of a broader social purpose,” wrote Andrew Edgecliff-Johnson in his Financial Times
article “Beyond the Bottom-Line.” There’s no room for half-committed companies. The business
case for CSR is unmistakable now, but it’s critical that corporations expand and continue to grow
their CSR programs to maintain success in the market. However, understand that CSR is not a
foolproof way to achieve business success. There are so many different factors, including quality
of products and managerial strategies, that influence a corporation’s financial standing. Like
quality and manufacturing, CSR is simply a strong contributing factor to competitive advantage
and financial performance. However, the research proves that CSR can strengthen a company
and set up its potential success within the business market. As Peloza states, “CSR is not a
discretionary expense, but a necessary cost of running the business” (55). Companies are now
looking to CSR to secure their financial future and they can easily ensure a successful outcome
by establishing measurement standards for their initiatives.

Ortega 32
IV. IT ALL COMES DOWN TO MEASUREMENT
A. Overview
Let’s face it—determining the impact of CSR isn’t easy. Any advocate of CSR would
wholeheartedly agree. The difficulty of measurement comes down to four key issues. First, the
vagueness of the term CSR poses a serious issue when it comes to measurement. The lack of an
agreeable definition makes it extremely difficult to determine what constitutes a CSR activity.
For decades academics and professionals have challenged its meaning, leaving little time to
improve measurement methods (De Bakker et al. 304-308; Elghandour and Adel 5). Second, the
benefits of CSR aren’t exactly easy to quantify because of CSR’s focus on providing “soft”
benefits such as education or hunger relief. These CSR activities can’t exactly be measured in
traditional ways such as return on investment (Balch; Mellahi; Baic et al.). Although
environmental issues, like energy conservation, are a big part of CSR, they tend to be easier to
measure in the U.S. because of EPA regulations that guide these practices (EPA). Trying to
determine the impact of the soft benefits, or anecdotes, of CSR can be extremely tiresome within
the corporate setting. “Measuring anecdotes becomes really hard when you sit within companies
that are used to measuring the bottom line,” said Wilson. Executives clamor for ways to
determine the benefits CSR initiatives bring to the company—that can be anything from
customer loyalty, increase in sales or brand reputation (Meier and Cassar; Vaccaro). These
companies are used to quantifying data into results that translate directly into dollar signs. Third,
there’s no set standard method used. Many organizations have attempted to tackle this challenge
of measurement, but there has yet to be one standard guide that proves to be effective.
Companies report differently, so it's hard to determine who is getting CSR right because there’s
no rulebook to follow. However, although there’s no standardized method, that shouldn’t stop
Ortega 33
companies from attempting to measure their impact. Companies must focus on determining what
success means to them individually.
In order to measure the success [of CSR initiatives], it has to be individual to each
company. The baseline would be understanding what the [company] goals are, asking if
the goals have KPIs, and then determining if the KPIs are a scientific fact—especially
when we’re talking about the environment and sustainability. It’s really all about
establishing baseline measurements and then ensuring that the company is continually
reporting against those baseline measurements. (Grey)
As Grey notes, measurement can be a bit easier once you’ve established what works for your
company. Lastly, measurement requires financial resources and not all corporations have the
funds or are willing to use them (Hespenheide).
An easily measurable CSR initiative is what every investor and business executive
dreams of because it allows companies to communicate the value of these activities to key
stakeholders (e.g., investors, employees, and customers), to align CSR goals with business goals,
and to improve decision-making in CSR programming. Unfortunately, there’s really no perfect
method that fully encompasses both financial, social, and environmental impact. As Grey made
clear, there are still valid tools and approaches to measurement that companies can use to assess
the performance of CSR and its impact on business and society, although many would like to use
measurement as an excuse to shy away from full CSR integration. The UN’s Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and the Global Reporting Initiative Standards (GRIs) are some of
the best tools any corporation can use to gauge their CSR impact.

Ortega 34
B. Effective Measurement Tools
1. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals

Fig. 1 – UN Sustainable Development Goals from “Sustainable Development Goals.”United Nations
Development Programme, http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html.
The UN launched the SDGs (see fig. 1) in 2015 as a plan of action to tackle some of the
world’s social and environmental issues affecting society (“Sustainable Development Goals”).
The organization laid out 17 goals with the hopes of transforming the world by 2030. Today,
these SDGs are discussed in the corporate reporting of 40 percent of the world’s largest
companies (KPMG 6). Companies are using SDGs as a foundation to assess how well their
business practices are achieving these goals. SDG reporting boils down to disclosing the action a
company is taking to achieve the goals laid out by the UN. “A really good indicator to see if a
company is measuring is if they’re using the SDGs for their CSR initiatives,” suggested Grey.
The SDGs are a very helpful and effective guideline that keeps companies accountable for the
goals that they are pursuing.
2. Global Reporting Initiatives (GRIs)
Moreover, the GRIs take it a step further than the SDGs and provide companies with a
clear and concise way of reporting their impacts on business, society and the environment
(Global Reporting Initiative). The GRIs are the first global reporting standards developed and
Ortega 35
they just so happen to be free to the public. The GSSB, a group of 15 experts from around the
world with diverse professional backgrounds, developed the standards (Global Reporting
Initiative). According to Jackson, the GRIs are “the global scorecard for many Fortune 500
companies.” The GRIs are comprised of universal as well as topic-specific standards, including
those specific to economic and environmental topics. Companies of any size can utilize this step-
by-step guide to help achieve goals, mitigate risks and make CSR reporting easier.
C. CSR Measurement Is Not A Lost Cause
These measurement and reporting systems are not perfect, but they can still provide
companies with the tools they need to ensure that their CSR initiatives are reaching their
intended goals. Large corporations, such as the Coca-Cola Company, have discovered the
benefits of these guidelines and have used them to create a foundation for their CSR reporting
(The Coca-Cola Company, “2017 Sustainability Report”). Ultimately, measurement of CSR
performance should focus on a triple bottom line: environmental, economic and social impact
(Balch; Mellahi). The SDGs and GRIs together make a great starting point on the road to
achieving it. Measurement has become the “Holy Grail of CSR,” but critics shouldn’t approach
this issue with a lost cause mentality (Scott). Just because we’re not there yet doesn’t mean we
should give up entirely. That’s not how things are going to get done. Instead, organizations
should continue to address this issue and seek ways to solve the problem. Measurement is going
to be the key to driving real impact on society and the environment. It’ll help organizations
understand what’s working and what’s not so they can focus on the areas that matter. There are
still many challenges the industry must overcome before standardizing one method for
measuring CSR impact, but it’s just part of the measurement journey. In the end, measurement is
Ortega 36
going to help corporations achieve sustainable CSR initiatives—a goal all companies should aim
to fulfill.
V. THE ROLE OF ADVERTISING
A. Overview
Advertising is a powerful method of communication—TV advertisements more so than
others. Research from USC Dornsife College estimates that the average adult sees two million
30-second TV commercials in a single year while children see 20,000 (USC Dornsife). TV ads
are especially impactful because they harness the power of visual storytelling to connect brands
and products with consumers. “Words can be emotional, but there’s something about a moving
image. There’s something about the audio and music that goes with it that is far more compelling
and touching,” said Professor Le Veque. “It’s the picture superiority effect. People are much
more likely to recall [ads] when they’re able to see things moving with audio to go along with
it.” Here’s the problem though—generally Americans don’t have a very positive attitude towards
ads and their social effects as many studies have found (Ferle and Lee 18; Hameed; Mehta 69;
Yukhananov). Specifically, people take issue with advertising because of discrepancies between
ads and product performance, leading them to view advertising as manipulative (Mehta 68-69).
It’s easy to be manipulated by advertising, especially TV advertisements—so much so that the
Federal Trade Commission had to create regulations for advertising to children (Federal Trade
Commission). Advertising in its rawest form is a tool of persuasion, but is it really the
manipulative monster that most people make it out to be?

Ortega 37
B. Advertising Used for Good

Fig. 2 – Pixability Growth of Cause-Related Ads Among the Top 100 Brands from Hein, Bettina. “New
Cause-Related Marketing Research: Why Brands Shouldn’t Be Afraid to Take a Stand.” Think with Google,
July 2017, https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/advertising-channels/video/cause-related-marketing-purpose-
driven-ads/.
I have to admit—my thoughts on advertising initially leaned more towards the negative. I
had always thought of it as this industry that continuously took advantage of consumers, but after
years studying the subject for my undergraduate degree, I’ve come to realize I couldn’t have
been more wrong. Advertising doesn’t always have to be about selling a product or service.
Social impact is beginning to reclaim advertising for good. Pixability, a marketing software
platform, partnered with Google and conducted a study (see fig. 2) that found that cause-related
ads on YouTube have grown 4x over the last five years (Hein). Companies, like Givewith (see
fig. 3), are now viewing advertising as a vital tool to disclose their purpose and value to their
target audiences. The increase in sales just so happens to be a secondary benefit. Gavan
Fitzsimons, lead researcher on the 2008 Cone/Duke University Behavioral Cause Study and
Duke University marketing professor, wrote, “One thing we know for sure—consumers are
paying more attention to cause messages, and as a result, are more likely to purchase. It's great
news for brand managers, as every percentage increase can translate to millions of dollars in
revenue” (“Cone Releases First Cause Consumer Study”). Businesses have doubled down on
their commitments to social issues by spending millions of dollars during the Super Bowl, also
Ortega 38
known as “the biggest advertising platform of the year” (Kline). The results have been
promising. Tim Calkins, a Northwestern University marketing professor, told AdAge, “Super
Bowl ads always reflect the mood of the country to a certain degree. Our country has all sorts of
issues right now, and it's very polarizing. And this may be brands responding to that by
embracing causes that everybody can rally around” (Schultz). USA Today’s Ad Meter—the go-
to ad rating system for over three decades—has signified this potential shift in advertising
content. At least one cause-related ad has been among the top 20 rated TV spots on the Ad Meter
in the past four years (“2015 Ad Meter Results”; “2016 Ad Meter Results”; 2017 Ad Meter
Results”, “2018 Ad Meter Results”). Cause-based ads are stealing the show.

Fig. 3 – Givewith Case Study
Although most people associate advertisements with product sales, advertising can be a
vital tool to connect with audiences on social issues. Ads can help companies start or change a
conversation about a social issue. In 2015, Always debuted its “Like a Girl” TV ad during the
Super Bowl and it became one of the most discussed ads of the year (Adobe Inc.; Berman; Diaz).
Ortega 39
The impact was so significant that it resulted in 20 million video views after one week and 125
million social mentions—92 percent of which were positive/neutral (Always). What made the ad
so unique was its ability touch on the issue of girl empowerment by changing the way people
used the phrase “like a girl.” The ad won multiple industry awards for its take on a common
gender bias phrase (D&AD; Nudd, “Always ‘Like a Girl’”). It used visual storytelling to start a
much-needed conversation about the power of gender stereotypes that we’re often taught to
believe at a very young age.
Additionally, in CSR, ads can be used to raise awareness of a social or environmental
issue and disclose what a company is doing to help solve it. Budweiser took this approach with
its “Stand By You” 2018 Super Bowl commercial. In the ad, Budweiser shined a light on the
importance of disaster relief, but it also disclosed its commitment to using its factories to produce
clean canned water for areas affected by natural disasters. It gave audiences a chance to
familiarize themselves with Anheuser-Busch’s disaster relief initiative for the past 30 years
(“Anheuser-Busch Doubles Emergency Relief”). A staggering 91 percent of Americans want
companies to show them how they’re supporting a cause, but few feel that they’re receiving
enough information, according to the 2008 Cone/Duke University Behavioral Cause Study
(“Cone Releases First Cause Consumer Study”). “In today’s highly transparent society,
consumers are seeking more information about the details of the program, the issue and the
impact that they and the company are having. Companies must not only answer, ‘What do you
stand for?’ but also ‘What do you do?’” suggested Alison DaSilva, executive vice president,
Knowledge Leadership and Insights, at Cone Communications (“Cone Releases First Cause
Consumer Study”). Corporations need to stop being afraid to use advertising to tell the world
about their CSR initiatives. Professor Leveque argues, “There’s a balance between bragging
Ortega 40
about something, which will turn people off—versus if nobody knows about it [CSR work] how
can they tell you’re doing it?” Ads help companies communicate the steps they’re taking to
incorporate CSR within their business.
Lastly, ads can also be an effective call-to-action tool for social and environmental issues.
Patagonia had never released a single TV ad in its 44-year history until 2017 (Nace; Beer). The
company stayed true to its environmental activist roots by using the commercial as an
opportunity to get consumers to join their efforts to protect public lands in America. Patagonia
released a statement following the ad—once again calling on Americans to make a difference:
This not about politics or partisanship—it’s about standing up for places that belong to
future generations. Patagonia wants to raise awareness of history’s lesson that when
public lands are turned over to states that can’t afford to maintain them, the result is the
land is often auctioned off to private companies who irrevocably damage them and deny
access to them for all of us. Whether you are a hunter or a hiker, an angler or a climber,
Patagonia wants you to join them in this fight to ensure access and protection for our
public lands (Nace).
At the end of the TV commercial, viewers were left with a call to action to text “DEFEND” to a
number that would then send them to a page urging them to contact their congressional
representatives (Cloos).
C. The Negatives of Advertising
Although a lot of good can come out of the advertising industry, the negative side of
advertising is often most evident when companies try to utilize it to complement CSR initiatives.
For starters, ads can easily be used to deceive or overstate CSR work. Consumers learned this the
hard way during the 2015 Volkswagen emissions scandal. Luckily, Volkswagen was forced to
Ortega 41
pay back billions of dollars as a result of its deceptive advertising (Coffee). Cause-related ads
can also expose the gap between a company’s words and actions. Unfortunately, many
companies have succumbed to this downfall—Audi being another one of them. The German car
company ran a TV ad during the 2017 Super Bowl that many praised for its positive stance on
gender equality. The ad ended with a statement from Audi pledging its commitment to pay
equality. The praise for the ad soon turned into criticism after people on social media pointed out
the Audi had very few women in executive leadership (Nudd, “Audi Defends”; Rath). It turns
out that Audi was talking the talk, but it wasn’t walking the walk. Companies must be wary of
how easy it can be to submit to the manipulative power of advertising and do their best to avoid
it.
When you think of CSR, advertising is not going to be the first thing that comes to mind.
Associating advertising with CSR could rub some people the wrong way, but in reality, it can be
extremely beneficial and necessary when it comes to promoting social causes. “If you don’t say
anything, you risk people thinking you’re not doing anything at all,” says Wilson. “For
companies that have a more direct-to-consumer model—somebody that has a product on a
shelf—advertising becomes an incredibly powerful tool to get that message out.” TV ads, in
particular, are an impactful way to use visual storytelling to get viewers to support a cause. A
recent study found that companies wanting to advertise their CSR programs were able to
overcome the negative perception of ads by pairing their CSR claims with visuals (Joireman et
al. 93). Sheila Murphy, a professor of communication at USC, recently examined ways to inspire
women to get health screenings for cervical cancer. Murphy focused on the effectiveness of
narrative versus non-narrative video. The test revealed that women were more-likely to respond
to a video in which information about the cause was told in a narrative format (“Using Narratives
Ortega 42
to Convey Health Information”). Turns out storytelling is much more impactful than delivering
hard facts. Therefore, TV ads can be a great way to create a visual narrative that helps consumers
understand the causes companies are supporting. Additionally, USC Dornsife College also found
that 31 percent of ads with emotional content were more successful than ads with rational
content (USC Dornsife). Emotions are the most powerful way to connect with consumers in
regards to social causes. What better way to do that than through visual storytelling? It allows
companies to give consumers an inside look at what the company stands for and what it cares
about.
VI. WHY THE TOPIC IS RELEVANT TODAY
A. Generational Changes
CSR is a reflection of social wants and needs at a particular point in time. The idea is
even more evident when factoring in the generational changes occurring over the past few
decades. There’s a clear relationship between age groups and the increasing value of the social
impact space. Each age group has its unique makeup. These age groups have had an enormous
effect on business and how it operates. They are the products of the time in which they grew up.
Learning about them will give professionals and consumers insights about how they influenced
the formation of CSR as well as the shifting values and future trends coming. It’ll help CSR
become stronger by embracing these generational differences and utilizing them to approach the
topic from different angles. More importantly, studying these generations will help CSR
professionals know who to talk to, what to talk to them about, and how to talk to them. With this
knowledge, CSR programming can become more intentional, strategic, and sustainable—just as
it should be.

Ortega 43
1. Shifts in Generational Values
a. Baby Boomers
i. Overview
Baby Boomers—one of the world’s most influential generations to have
ever been born. The Boomers were a by-product of post-war celebrations and
economic growth as soldiers returned home from World War II with an extra
sense of security and hope for the future. The world experienced a massive
increase in births after the war came to an end and this became known as the baby
boom (Kenton). The term Baby Boomers now accounts for the group of
individuals born between 1946 and 1964 (Dimock; Kenton;Williams and Page 4).
Nearly 76 million people were born into this significant generation, representing
almost 40 percent of the U.S. population (Kenton; “Millennials Outnumber”;
Ryback). As of 2019, the Boomers are between the ages 55 and 73. These
individuals have become known as one of the most influential age groups in
history, and they continue to leave a legacy to learn from.
ii. Family + Work
The Boomers grew up in traditional families during the height of the
American idealism. Born into a new world of economic expansion after World
War II, they were all too familiar with life in the suburbs. Perhaps that’s what
drove some of them to rebel against the traditional way of life in the ‘60s.
Boomers have a strong work ethic as a result of their upbringing. This generation
got to experience a conventional family life—dad was off to work while mom
was at home tending to the children. Thus, the parents of the Boomers encouraged
Ortega 44
their children to work hard enough to obtain the same or more success than they
had. They learned to work hard and not take their jobs for granted. Not known for
their work-life balance, many Boomers prioritized their career over family life
(Gordon; qtd. Zabel et al. 3). This dedication to work also created a loyal
relationship between boomers and their employers (qtd. Zabel et al. 3). Some
might say this strong work ethic is what likely provided the motivation needed to
pursue the social upheaval of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Baby Boomers were taught to
commit to jobs and get things done—and that’s what they’ve done. Now, the
Boomers are beginning to age out of the workforce, and they’re leaving many
leadership positions up for grabs (McDonald 5). Boomers are left wondering what
to do next as they enter their retirement phase. Travel? Volunteer? Pick up a new
hobby? The verdict is still out on that one, but best case scenario—retirement may
reignite their social activist roots as the current political climate is in desperate
need of a little social justice.
iii. Social Change + Activism
The Baby Boomers experienced enough social change to last a lifetime.
They’re most known for the pivotal role they played in unlocking cultural
freedom. The Baby Boomer era was marked by the social upheaval that began in
the 1960s and carried on into the ‘70s. Boomers were coming of age during some
of the most significant points in American history. Many marched and rallied in
support of the Civil Rights Movement as a majority of the country was up in arms
about the issue of race. The Vietnam War protests started on college campuses as
students from the Boomer generation adamantly expressed their opposition
Ortega 45
through “teach-ins” and “sit-ins”(History.com Editors). The shift in culture did
not stop there. The sexual revolution of the late 1960s and early ‘70s allowed men
and women to be more open about and take control of their sexuality. Birth
control pills were readily available which not only gave women sexual freedom
but also gave them more opportunity to enter the workforce (Swanson). Drugs
became a common party favor and emergence of rock and roll provided a
soundtrack for this generation defined by change. The Baby Boomers gave
meaning to the term counterculture. They became known as the social activism
and protest generation—always standing up for causes they believed in.
iv. Conclusion
The glitz and glamour of the Baby Boomers have all but faded as the younger
more mysterious generations are taking the spotlight. However, the Boomers are
more important than ever when considering the influence they’ve had on shaping
the society we now live in. The Baby Boomers are the generation who taught us
the value of hard work. They taught us the importance of standing up for what we
believe in. The Boomers sowed the seeds of cultural freedom for generations to
come. Their desire for cultural change paved the way for modern corporate social
responsibility to flourish in today’s social climate.
b. Generation X (Gen X)
i. Overview
Gen X, born between the years 1965 and 1980, followed the Baby Boomer
generation (Dimock). Xers are only comprised of about 65 million individuals, at
least 10 million less than the Boomers (Taylor and Gao). Unlike their culture
Ortega 46
shifting parents, Gen X is known for their cynical take on the world and distrust in
nearly every big institution—religion, government, advertising, etc. This age
cohort experienced a very different childhood than the boomers who came before
them. Majority of the individuals from Gen X were children of divorce or children
of two working parents—a vastly different family life than the boomers had
(Gregory-Thomas; Woodward-Thomas). Parents of Gen X children spent a lot of
time away from the home as they worked to provide for their family, often
leaving their children with no parental supervision or guidance. Gen X turned into
a generation full of angst. According to a 2004 marketing study, Gen X "went
through its all-important formative years as one of the least parented, least
nurtured generations in U.S. history” (qtd in. Gregory-Thomas). Gen X is often
thought to be the one age cohort that genuinely embodies the middle child
stereotype: neglected and ignored (Martin).
ii. Conclusion
However, Gen X has made some significant impacts on the world despite
being almost unnoticeable in comparison to Baby Boomers and Millennials. Out
of their shortcomings, Gen X learned to be independent, make hard choices, and
get things done. Many Gen Xers are now in positions of power in the business
world today. Google, Amazon, and PayPal are just a few of the many companies
founded by someone from the Gen X generation (Andjelic). The entrepreneurial
spirit is alive and well among this age group. Around 55 percent of startup
founders belong to the Gen X generation (Andjelic; Rampton). This age cohort
wasn’t afraid to take matters into their own hands, and now society is benefitting
Ortega 47
because of it. They are “a generation whose worldview is based on change, on the
need to combat corruption, dictatorships, abuse, AIDS, a generation in search of
human dignity and individual freedom, the need for stability, love, tolerance, and
human rights for all” (qtd. Ryback). Generation X is more than the overlooked
age cohort that most people paint them to be. They may have a cynical outlook on
life, but that’s what made them want to see change happen. Ultimately, they want
society to obtain the validation that they were never given. Gen X is continuing to
leave its impact on society in a powerful yet subtle manner.
b. Xennials
i. Overview
Xennials are the generation caught in the middle. If you don’t know them
by Xennials, you might know them by one of their other namesakes: The Oregon
Trail Generation, Generation Catalano, or The Lucky Ones (Garvey; Shafrir).
Sarah Stankorb first used the term “Xennials” in a 2014 article for GOOD
Magazine which described life in the “post-Gen X, pre Millennial generation.”
This recently defined micro-generation consists of any individuals born sometime
between 1977 and 1985 (Lebowitz; Miller). Xennials found themselves stuck
between two generational cohorts that they never quite felt a connection with—
Gen X and Millennials (Stollen and Wolf). Xennials became a generational misfit.
They were born into the unlikely position of living “with one foot in Generation X
and one in Generation Y” (Stolen and Wolf).
ii. Tech
Xennials are in a truly unique position when it comes to technology. They
Ortega 48
were lucky enough to experience a pre-digital childhood, but as adults, they
learned to adapt and embrace newly emerging tech. Many Xennials spent their
childhood playing outdoors with friends, not glued to a computer screen. They
were one of the last generations to know what it was like to grow up without
technology at their fingertips. As Xennials matured, so did technology. They
didn’t get their hands on technology until middle school—hello, GameBoy. They
were the first generation to have household computers—floppy disks and all.
They got their first emails in college—Hotmail was the craze. Many didn’t even
get their first cell phone until they were in their 20s. This opportunity to age with
technology became a huge benefit to Xennials. They learned to become flexible.
Now, it seems that Xennials are the key to finding a way to use technology in a
way that doesn’t isolate society from human intimacy. They have the knowledge
and understanding of human relationships, having grown up without technology,
but they can use their learned technical expertise to help foster those relationships
instead of isolating them (Slotkin).
iii. Cynicism + Optimism
The unique combination of Gen X cynicism and Millennial lays the
foundation of being a Xennial (Garvey; Stankorb). They were old enough to
witness some of the most significant moments of their lifetime, but still too young
to directly experience the impacts. Xennials enjoyed school before a post-
Columbine era of school shootings. They experienced the catastrophic events of
9/11, but it did not crush their hopes for the future. In “Reasonable People
Disagree about the Post-Gen X, Pre-Millennial Generation,” Stankorb expressed
Ortega 49
her own thoughts about these dual characteristics. “Much of our childhoods were
spared the dark shadow cast by tragedy and war,” stated Stankorb—a Xennial
herself (2014). Xennials lived through the Recession and were affected by it, but
luckily most were not old enough to truly experience significant loss as older
generations did (Stankorb). Tragedy loomed overhead during their formative
years, but it never dampened the Xennial spirit.
iv. Conclusion
Xennials shouldn’t be disregarded as just a micro-generation without an
identity. The fact of the matter is, Xennials got the best of both worlds. They’re
cynical and wary, but optimistic when the time is right. They continue to value the
things of the past, but they’re not afraid to embrace what lies in the future. They
know the importance of unplugging from technology—something society could
use a little more of. They’re the first to point out that technology may be getting
out of hand, but they're also the willing and able to do something about it.
Xennials truly are the lucky ones.
c. Millennials / Gen Y
Moving on to everyone’s favorite age group to talk about and criticize—Gen Y,
or Millennials as most people call them. Born between the years 1981 and 1996,
Millennials have exceeded the Boomers as the largest generation in U.S. history
(Andrews; Dimock). Millennials have been the subject of countless media stories and
research studies as many people attempt to decipher their impact on society. The talk of
Millennials is exhausting and overdone, but it’s incredibly important to focus on the
significant characteristics of this age cohort that make them so unique. There’s more to
Ortega 50
this so-called narcissistic generation than some would like to believe. They are
unabashedly optimistic, incredibly proficient with technology, and significantly changing
the way the world communicates. Millennials are an optimistic generation despite the
number of challenges that have come their way. They are a generation that has been
forced to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, the Recession, and the onslaught of mass
shootings occurring in America. Their economic future is reason enough to have them
fearful of the future. Roughly 42 percent of Millennials are dealing with amounting
student debt which has recently surpassed $1.48 trillion in the U.S. (Harvard Kennedy
School; Safier). In 2016, the Millennial unemployment rate was at 12.8 percent—7.9
percent higher than the national average (Alton, “Millennials Are Struggling”; Sutton).
However, Millennials continue to push forward through all the chaos surrounding them.
They view life in a circular pattern—challenges will come and go, but so will new
opportunities (Brack and Kelly, pg. 3). Don’t mistake the Millennial optimism for
naivety—it’s not. Millennials have seen the ugliness of the world, but they choose to put
their hope in the future.
i. Technology + Social Media
Millennials grew up during technology’s shift to the mainstream, and they
have embraced it every step of the way—setting themselves apart from all the
generations that came before them. As kids, Millennials gravitated toward
technology. Gaming systems like the Nintendo 64 and Sony PlayStation not only
shaped the way they played as children, but they began forming what Millennials
valued in life. It was through technology, like gaming, that Millennials got their
first taste of instant gratification and the opportunity to save the world (Jenkins,
Ortega 51
“The Complete Story”). Online chat rooms and search engines radically changed
the way Millennials socialized and acquired information. Instead of knocking on
the door of their friend’s house, they were opening chat room doors to instant
message people from around the world. Instead of checking out books at the local
library, they were doing a quick Google search to find the information they
needed. Social media and mobile internet took the world by storm in the early
2000s and Millennials were ready to embrace it (Jenkins, “The Complete Story”).
They became early adopters of this new technology and used it to reshape the
world around them. Socializing has become an entirely new concept. What once
meant face-to-face talks, now constitutes a post on Instagram. They snap, type,
and post as if their life depends on it. Technology also empowered Millennials to
discover things—friends, culture, music--beyond their geographical location.
They are more similar to one another across the world than any other generation.
This is likely due to the globalization of social media (Stein). The impact of social
media extends beyond personal use. It’s made an impact on politics, health care,
and social activism. According to a study from Pew Research Center, “48 percent
of 18-to-29-year-olds decide to learn more about political or social issues because
of what they read on social networking sites” (Spengler). Because of technology,
Millennials have also become active consumers. Communication between
organizations and their stakeholders is no longer a one-way conversation.
ii. Cause-driven
Millennials have ultimately made a name for themselves because of their
passion for social causes. This age cohort has reignited the cause movement that
Ortega 52
the Baby Boomers started years ago. Millennials place a high value on social
responsibility as citizens, consumers, and employees. Their civic engagement is
increasing as they get older and as technology becomes more advanced
(Spengler). They’re motivated to educate others about their social responsibility
and are willing to do whatever it takes to leave the world a better place for future
generations.
Millennials have completely changed the way business is conducted.
Giving back and doing good is extremely important to this generation, especially
when it comes to their opinions of corporations which heavily influences their
consumer behavior. Millennials have dominated the power in the business
markets and corporations can no longer afford to ignore these cause-driven
consumers. They currently control roughly $2.5 trillion in spending power, and
that’ll only increase as they get older and become more established in their
careers (Alton, “How Millennials Are Reshaping”; Richards). This age group
represents a huge potential customer base if corporations can connect with them
through CSR work. More than half, roughly 70 percent, of Millennials are willing
to buy more from brands that support a cause that concerns them, according to
Cone Communications (Alton, “How Millennials Are Reshaping”). Additionally,
Millennials are more likely to recommend a company to friends and family if they
see that it gives back to charity (Preston). Millennials are aware they have the
purchasing power, and they’re not afraid to use it to their advantage. According to
Deloitte’s 2018 Human Capital Trends report, 86 percent of millennials believe
that financial success should not be the sole determinant of business success
Ortega 53
(Agarwal et al.). These cause-drive individuals are now calling on companies to
do their part and support their demand for socially conscious products and
services. They want to give their money to companies that make an effort to
create a better environment and society. This generation has created a massive
shift in consumer behavior which has left corporations scrambling to reevaluate
and reinvent their CSR programs. “Millennials are a driving force in consumer
behavior,” says Professor Jackson. “They are demanding evidence that the
companies that they’re buying from are actually demonstrating CSR practices—
whether they call it that or not.” Millennials’ cause-related purchase decisions
have put increasing pressure on corporations to become socially responsible.
These facts about millennials are nothing new. They’ve been known for years
now, but many corporations continue to lose sight of their importance. It’s all too
common for corporations to take facts like these and run with them without using
them strategically. However, if CSR initiatives are not done right, consumers
aren’t going to put up with it.
iii. Corporate Culture
Not only are Millennials changing business as consumers, but they’re also
making their impact known by reshaping corporate culture. Millennials stepped
into the business world with a very different approach than the generations before
them. They developed new standards for themselves as employees and for
companies looking to attract them right from the start. They place a high value on
things like diversity, opportunity for growth and a work-life balance (Alton,
“How Millennials Are Reshaping”; Ernst and Young 22-23). Millennials don’t
Ortega 54
want to work in a traditional workplace littered with endless rows of cubicles.
They are team-oriented and want to work in an environment that allows them to
collaborate with coworkers (Brack and Kelly, 4). They don’t want their job to be
dictated by a nine to five workday like their parents either. They want flexible
options that allow them to have the work-life balance they desire (Ernst and
Young 22-23). Millennials are even willing to take a salary cut and change jobs in
exchange for a better work-life balance according to a study conducted by
Fidelity, a financial service firm (“Better Quality of Work Life”). Ultimately,
Millennials want more from their jobs and careers—they want purpose. Unlike
past generations, Millennials aren’t driven by their paychecks (Comaford). They’
have the desire to fulfill their life’s purpose and see their career as the opportunity
to do so. They want to feel that they’re a part of something greater and they’re
looking for corporations who can provide that for them. By 2020, millennials will
make up almost 50 percent of the global workforce as boomers enter retirement in
droves (PwC 6).
Companies are finding new and creative ways to respond to the
Millennials in the workplace. Consider the ultra-popular company WeWork—an
organization that provides shared workspaces for all types of business
professionals. The company was founded in 2010 with the mission to “create a
world where people work to make a life, not a living” (WeWork). It’s clear that
WeWork, and many companies like it, are trying to fulfill the Millennial demand
for community and purpose. Whether it’s through free lunch or open-office floor
plans, corporations are finding ways to cater to Millennials any way they can.
Ortega 55
However, corporations must shift their focus away from material things and
channel it into corporate social responsibility initiatives to retain the millennial as
employees. Millennials want to work for companies that are socially responsible,
but it's up to corporations to provide them with the ability to do so.
iv. Why Millennials Matter in the CSR World
Millennials have become known to many as the self-entitled, “me, me,
me” generation (Gillespie; Jenkins, “Why Millennials Are So Entitled”; Stein). A
quick Google search will lead to countless articles that criticize and put the blame
on millennials for many of society’s current problems. These 22 to 37-year-olds
have been given a bad rap in recent years as many of the older generations have
complained about their laziness and narcissistic tendencies. A Reason-Rupe Poll
revealed that 65 percent of American adults view millennials as entitled and a
staggering 71 percent think of them as selfish (Gillespie). Most adults negatively
view millennials. Millennials have their faults, but so do every other generation
preceding them. So, why are people so hell-bent on condemning Millennials? The
dismissive attitudes toward this generation may be a symptom of fear—
specifically, fear of change. Millennials have not just changed society, they’ve
redefined it. People interact and communicate in completely new ways.
Businesses are operating differently and are being held to new standards. It’s
uncharted territory that society is only beginning to get comfortable with. Nobody
can honestly say they like change. Change is scary. That’s true, but it’s not a
reason to discredit an entire generation’s impact on society. Enough is enough.

Ortega 56
e. Generation Z (Gen Z)
The post-millennial generation, also known as Generation Z or iGen, is more
difficult to define than any other generation that precedes it. Pew Research Center
recently identified the post-millennial generation to be anyone born from the year 1997
onward (Dimock). It’s been challenging for researchers and business professionals to
define the values and characteristics of Gen Z because a majority of them are just barely
entering adulthood. Gen Z has completely thrown the entire business world for a loop as,
and companies are doing everything they can to prepare for them. By 2020, Gen Z will
account for 40 percent of consumers (Finch). Thus, understanding this group of
individuals is extremely important to corporations looking to succeed in the future.
Scholars and business professionals are in a race to solve the mystery that is Gen Z.
Researchers are barely beginning to understand who Gen Zers are because their defining
characteristics and values are still being formed. Although much is still unknown about
Generation Z, what's been discovered so far signifies a long-lasting legacy in their future.
Gen Z is breaking all the rules, and they’re not showing any signs of stopping.
i. Digital Natives
If Millennials are tech-savvy, then Gen Zers are digital natives. They were
born into a world with advanced technology at their fingertips, and many have
never known life without it. Millennials can at least think back to a time when
technology wasn’t readily available to them. Gen Z wouldn’t even begin to
recognize the begrudging sound of dial-up internet that many of us had to grow
accustomed to. Nearly 92 percent of Gen Zs in the U.S. have a digital footprint
(Patel, “8 Ways Generation Z”). They’re constantly posting, sharing, and liking
Ortega 57
any content that comes their way and they’re not afraid to admit it. According to a
study conducted by Awesomeness TV and Trendera, 69 percent of Gen Zs believe
people their age are more addicted to technology (20). They’ve learned to connect
with the world through technology because that’s the only way they’ve ever
known how to.
ii. Fluid Identities
Gen Zers are unwilling to be defined or constrained by other people’s
rules. They pride themselves on their fluid identifies. “Gen Z approach all aspects
of their identity—gender, sexuality, and personal brand—as malleable and
constantly evolving,” wrote PSFK, an American media company. They strive to
be their unique selves and don’t let any labels define who they are. Gen Z is
constantly changing and re-shaping their identity to fit the moment. This age
group’s constant connection to social media has also created new dimensions of
their personalities. They’re displaying different digital personas across social
media platforms. One in five teens have revealed that they’ve created a “finsta,”
or fake Instagram, on which they post “the good, the bad, and the ugly” without
worrying about relatives or employers criticizing them (Awesomeness TV and
Trendera 35). In Gen Z’s eyes, there’s nothing wrong with having a multifaceted
personality that is continually changing. It’s they’re way of allowing themselves
to express who they are in all dimensions of their identity. They’re growing up in
a constantly connected world that is rejecting the traditional way of things—
opening them up to limitless choices that define who they are. Corporations must
pay close attention to how they approach this fluid generation if they hope to
Ortega 58
resonate with them. Some brands, like youth-approved cosmetic company Milk,
have already taken this information into account and played into the idea of fluid
identities (PSFK). They’re creating brand-less packaging and gender neutral lines
that allow anyone and everyone to be a part of their services. Businesses will have
to market to multiple aspects of their personalities to create a real connection with
this age group.
iii. Higher Education
Higher education is no longer on Gen Z’s to-do list. Unlike generations of
the past, Gen Z is rethinking the idea of a college education in favor of
unconventional education programs and learned experiences (Awesomeness TV
and Trendera 36; Patel, “8 Ways Generation Z”). The Internet has opened up a
new world of learning opportunities that were completely unheard of a decade
ago. What once could only be taught in the classroom can now be learned with a
quick Google search or YouTube link. It’s not that Gen Z doesn’t see the
importance of a college education—research shows that 89 percent of Gen Zers
still view it as valuable—they’re just seriously considering alternative options
more than previous generations did (Barnes & Noble College 3). Overall, Gen Z
is looking for ways to avoid the burden of student debt that Millennials had to
deal with (Patel, “8 Ways Generation Z”). Gen Z may also choose alternative
methods of education in favor of entrepreneurism. According to a study
conducted by Millennial Branding and Internships.com, 72 percent of Gen Z high
school students surveyed want to start their own business, and 62 percent would
prefer to be their own boss rather than work as an employee (Patel, “8 Ways
Ortega 59
Generation Z”; Peterson). They aren’t waiting around for jobs to fall into their
laps—they’re creating their own.
iv. Guarded
Gen Z was exposed to global tragedies from a very young age, shaping
their core values and characteristics. They have been described as “a scarred
generation, cautious and hardened by economic and social turbulence,” which
accounts for their guarded nature (qtd. Petro). They’ve grown up in a world where
tragedy is constantly projected in the media. Although, this unlimited access to
the world has widened their perspective beyond their geographic location thanks
to advances in technology. “Teens today increasingly see themselves within the
context of a larger global collective and are thinking about their place as well as
how to make their mark within in,” claimed Awesomeness and Trendera in their
national survey report on Gen Z (16). While Millennials are off being optimistic,
Gen Zers are realistic and searching for practical solutions to problems. Sixty
percent of Gen Zers want to leave an impact on the world, and one in five find it
to be an issue they think about daily (Awesomeness and Trendera18). The internet
and social media may have given Gen Z a closer look at a world laden with
tragedy, but this exposure lit the fire that has motivated this generation to create
real, sustainable change in society.
v. Social Justice
Gen Z is on the warpath for social justice. Millennials are strong advocates
for social causes, but Gen Z is down in the trenches actively seeking solutions to
some of society’s most difficult problems. They’re not satisfied with living in a
Ortega 60
world of fear; they’re ready to do something about it. Gen Z is arguably more
vocal and expressive of their views on social issues than Millennials. The students
from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are living proof. These Gen Z
students took matters into their own hands after living through the Parkland
shooting massacre. They didn’t sit back and let the media run with their story—
they took control of the conversation themselves. Just a day after the haunting
events unfolded at their high school, Cameron Kasky and his fellow students
started the #NeverAgain gun reform movement (Alter). Kasky, along with Emma
Gonzalez, Jaclyn Corin, Alex Wind, and David Hogg, hit the ground running.
These student activists managed to give countless interviews demanding action
from representatives, travel to the state capitol and Washington D.C. and
organized a nationwide rally—all in a span in three short months (Alter; Agrawal
and Kaleem). Muddling through the criticism and fake news, this group of Gen
Zers pressed forward to create systemic change. Out of grief and anger, Gen Z has
shed their innocence and emerged with a new sense of purpose—social justice.
They’re demanding the world’s attention, and everyone is starting to listen.
Unlike Millennials, Gen Z isn’t asking for corporate social
responsibility—they’re demanding it. Gen Z wants to believe in a sincere attempt
to tackle social causes, and they’re not putting up with companies who aren’t fully
committed to doing so. After the Parkland shooting, Emma Gonzalez and her
fellow student activists urged the public, including corporations, to support gun
control. Soon, corporations began feeling the pressure to do their part to support
the gun control debate. Two weeks after the Parkland shooting, Dick’s Sporting
Ortega 61
Goods became the first business entity to announce that they would no longer sell
firearms at their stores (Barca). Other companies followed in Dick’s footsteps and
offered their support by cutting ties with the National Rifle Association (NRA)
(Bomey). Gen Z is calling on the business industry to take a stand on social
issues. They want corporations to commit to carrying out business practices that
will benefit the communities they operate in (Patel, “10 Ways To Prepare”). With
the long term picture in mind, Gen Z doesn’t want short-term initiatives. They
want corporations to do their part to create sustainable solutions to societal issues.
Gen Z wants to be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.
2. Generations in Business
Fig. 4 – Barbie #MoreRoleModels Campaign Case Study

Three generations make up the majority of the management and decision-making
levels in business today—the Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials. Younger generations are
moving toward cause-focused companies as both consumers and employees, but the older
generations (e.g., Boomers and Gen X) are the ones still running the companies (Alvarez
and Marsal, 3). Most Millennials are at middle-management levels right now, roughly 62
Ortega 62
percent, but in a few years, they’ll likely make their way up to the C-Suite if they haven’t
already (Ernst and Young, 8). There’s no doubt that the values of these generations will
continue to influence the way they conduct business in the future. They’re already doing
it now. In a study conducted by the Public Affairs Council, it was revealed that senior
management and regular employees were the biggest influences when deciding whether
their company should get involved in social issues (7). We see direct evidence of this
among popular companies. LUSH, with a baby boomer CEO, has continued to uphold its
company-wide commitments to society such as ethical buying and naked packaging
(LUSH). Mattel/Barbie recently committed to empowering young girls around the world
through its #MoreRoleModels campaign (see fig. 4). MTV, one of the most popular
media networks among Millennials and Gen Z, launched its “Enough” Anti-Gun-
Violence Campaign in response to the Parkland shooting (see fig. 5). From ethical
business standards to empowering young girls, we’re seeing more companies implement
CSR initiatives and stand up for causes they believe in—a direct result of the
characteristics and values of Boomers, Gen X and Millennials in executive positions.
Their values are pouring into the way they conduct business, and it’s all for the better.
Ortega 63

Fig. 5 – MTV “Enough” Campaign Case Study
3. Conclusion
If there’s any reason to be more strategic with corporate social responsibility
initiatives, it’s the change in generational values that first began with the Baby Boomers.
Every generation since the Boomers has influenced the growing desire for social
responsibility. There has been a progressive shift in values over the past few years as a
direct result of these generational influences. Businesses are seeing an increasing amount
of consumers who are placing a high value on social impact—something that can easily
be traced back to the changing values of these generational cohorts (Alton, “How
Millennials Are Reshaping”; McGlone et al. 195-196; Williams and Page 12). It’s
glaringly obvious that these generations mentioned had, and continue to have, a profound
impact on society and business. They pushed for human rights, they held companies
accountable for their actions, and they urged companies to do better for the communities
in which they operate. Consumers are becoming more socially engaged and they’re ready
to put their money where they see it translated into impact. The younger generations are
Ortega 64
especially focused on social impact. They want corporations to do more than simply
donate money to a cause and wipe their hands of it. They want to see action.
B. Cultural Changes
1. Changes in Business
a. Expanding areas of business
i. CSR
Business is growing a conscience. A number of areas in the business industry are
expanding and focusing on social and environmental impact. A corporation’s social
responsibility has become important now more than ever. Seventy-seven percent of
companies around the world rated social impact as a critical factor in business according
to Deloitte’s Human Capital Trends Survey (Bersin). If you’re not on board yet, get ready
to get left behind. As mentioned earlier, 92 percent of the world’s largest companies
produced a CSR report in 2015—a number likely to have grown in today’s business
landscape (Meier and Cassar). According to a survey conducted by IBM, 68 percent of
business leaders are using CSR as a way to sustainably grow their business and create
more revenue (2-3). The largest companies in the world spend nearly $20 billion a year
on CSR projects as of 2018 (Meier and Cassar). These three facts alone prove that most
companies have some CSR initiative implemented within their business. Additionally,
more companies seem to be engaging in cause-marketing campaigns in addition to other
internal CSR initiatives. Brands are tackling difficult issues such as women’s
empowerment, racial equality, and gun violence. We see big-name companies, like
Always, develop entire campaigns around a single cause and the results have been
promising. Always leveraged research data to launch a new campaign that aimed to
Ortega 65
empower young girls and take back the phrase “Like a Girl” (Always, “#LikeAGirl”).
The global campaign was a much-needed success, and it evolved into other CSR
activities for the company such as educational and donation programming (Always,
“Helping Girls”). Companies are becoming more comfortable with standing up for causes
they believe in, and consumers are all too happy to welcome it.
However, not all companies are created equal and, regrettably, some corporations
are still only touching the surface of what it means to implement CSR initiatives. Thus,
it’s important to be cautious as professionals and consumers. Think twice about the CSR
programs you come across and make sure it’s actually following through with mission
and purpose. Although many corporations are reporting their CSR work, few are truly
committing to it, and that’s why the CSR industry needs to continually educate
themselves to evolve past these half-hearted CSR attempts.
ii. Social Entrepreneurism
Social entrepreneurism is regaining popularity in the business world as society continues
to shift its focus toward social impact. The concept has been around in the United States
since the 1970s and 1980s, but it didn’t take off until the 1990s (Boschee and McClurg
1). The social entrepreneur is an individual who is committing their business to a social
purpose. They are defined as “any person, in any sector, who uses earned income
strategies to pursue a social objective” (Boschee and McClurg 3). What separates
traditional entrepreneurs and business professionals from social entrepreneurs is the
importance they place on money. Traditional entrepreneurs and business professionals
measure their success by the amount of money they make. They may be socially
responsible in their business practices, but ultimately, they’re motivated to increase
Ortega 66
profits. Alternatively, social entrepreneurs focus on achieving a double or triple bottom
line, “a virtual blend of financial and social returns” (Boschee and McClurg 3). They
don’t earn income and spend it somewhere else. Social entrepreneurs strive to ensure that
their mission is always directly fulfilled by their earned income. Now, the social
enterprise is the social entrepreneur's organization. Jerr Boschee attempted to define the
term social enterprise in his article “Merging The Profit Motive and Moral Imperatives:
The Rise of Social Enterprise In The United States”:
A social enterprise today is defined as any private sector or nonprofit business
that uses earned revenue strategies to pursue a double or triple bottom line, either
alone (as a social sector business) or as a significant part of a mixed revenue
stream that includes charitable contributions and public sector subsidies (3)
Social enterprises can be both for-profit and nonprofit, but both must be driven by a
social mission and have an earned income. The ability to earn income is the only way
these organization can become sustainable and leave a lasting impact on society. Many of
the social enterprises created, such as Camara Education (see fig. 6), utilize a
product/service sales strategy by employing the disadvantaged while also selling
products/services that have a direct impact on the organization’s social mission (Boschee
4; Boschee and McClurg 3). The rise of social enterprises speaks to how fast the social
impact space is growing. In the U.S. alone, 60 percent of all social enterprises within the
country were established in 2006 or later (Sillis; Thornley). Society is growing more
attuned to the social impact of business, and social enterprises are just further proof.
Ortega 67
Fig. 6 — Camara Education Case Study

iii. Benefit Corporations + Certified B-Corps
Benefit Corporations and Certified B-Corps are growing in popularity in the
United States. The two terms are often confused because of their similarities, but a closer
look reveals significant differences. Certified B Corps came first thanks to the help of the
nonprofit B Lab. The nonprofit aims to “redefine the role of business in society”—
turning the focus on doing good for society through business (BLab). B Corp certification
is offered only by B Lab, but it’s free for any for-profit business to acquire. The process
includes assessing a corporation’s transparency, accountability, as well as environmental
and social performance (Love). If the company meets levels of the requirements
established by B Lab, it is then granted B-Corp certification.
Alternatively, Benefit Corporations were developed as a result of the movement
started by B Lab. They're relatively new to the business world, but this 501c3 alternative
is looked upon favorably. Benefit Corporation status is not a certification; it is a mission-
Ortega 68
aligned legal structure for for-profits in the United States. Maryland was the first to pass
benefit corporation legislation in 2010, but since then, 34 other states have followed suit
(Barnes). Kickstarter and Patagonia are two heavyweight names that made a company-
wide decision to expand their purpose beyond profit by opting to become benefit
corporations (Benefit Corporation). The legitimization of Benefit Corporations and
Certified B-Corps are an incredible step forward for the private sector. They’re a
validation of the desire and need for social impact in business. Our society is yearning for
change within the business industry, and it’s about time it listened.
b. The Social-Conscious Consumer
As demonstrated throughout this paper, consumers want more. They want more
out of their purchases, and they are expecting more out of companies. Seventy-eight
percent of Americans think corporations ought to positively impact society, not just make
a profit, according to the 2018 Purpose Study from Cone/Porter Novelli (5). Consumers
want corporations to have a purpose—a reason for existing that goes beyond earned
revenues. Consumers still value quality above all, but purpose isn’t far behind.
(“Americans More Loyal and Willing”). They’re looking for companies to not only
define that purpose but also demonstrate that purpose through actions—and that’s where
CSR comes in. CSR is the way in which corporations can showcase their purpose to
consumers. It’s a way to say, “Look, here’s why we exist and here’s what we’re doing to
fulfill our purpose.” Consumers are willing and ready to show their support to companies
who do just that. Nielsen’s 2012 survey, “The Global, Socially Conscious Consumer,”
found that over 50 percent of global consumers are more willing to buy from a company
with programs that benefit society. These consumers are actively seeking out socially
Ortega 69
conscious brands and products/services. They’re not just stumbling upon them as they
shop. It’s evident that the social conscious of consumers is heavily influencing their
purchase decisions. As reported by the 2018 Edelman Earned Brand Global Report, 1 in 2
people are considered belief-buyers—those who “choose, switch, avoid or boycott a
brand based on its stand on societal issues”(5). Consumers are buying based on what
issues they believe in, but are also taking into consideration the steps companies are
taking to ratify those issues. These types of consumers are not only millennials, and Gen
Zs like most people believe—older consumers are now “buying on belief” as well
(Edelman, “2018 Earned Brand Global Report” 11). The socially conscious consumer
isn’t specific to America either. According to the same Edelman report, belief-buying has
increased across multiple global markets including the U.K, Japan, and Germany (10).
The consumer landscape is shifting its focus to socially conscious business, and
corporations are already feeling the pressure. In a Public Affairs Council survey, 60
percent of corporate respondents said that they have faced increasing pressure to engage
in social issues from significant stakeholders within the past few years (1). Seventy-four
percent of the respondents felt that the pressure would likely increase in the next three
years, according to the same survey (Public Affairs Council 1). The pressure is weighing
heavy on corporations, but it stems from the faith consumers are putting in business.
Consumers are expecting more out of corporations because many feel that businesses can
be more trusted than government to create social change (Edelman, “2018 Earned Brand
Global Report” 4, 14). Corporations must live up to the demand or be ready to face the
consequences. The socially conscious consumer isn’t just a trend; it’s the new normal.
Ortega 70
That should be reason enough for corporations to start developing more integrated CSR
programs.
2. Changes in Society
a. Technology Developments
As a society, we’ve become more socially aware of what’s happening in the world
around us, but it’s a direct result of the advances in technology. Digital technology has
widened our worldview and allowed us to see beyond our local communities. Connecting
with someone across the country can happen with a click of the button. Social media
upended the way we communicate and digest information. It’s become one of our
primary forms of communication as people are using social it more than ever before. In
2005, only 5 percent of American adults used social media, but that number has risen to
69 percent today (Pew Research Center). We now have almost unlimited access to
information, and we can obtain it instantly. This digital revolution has given us the
opportunity to become more aware of causes, better understand them, and advocate for
them. We may be bombarded with upsetting information on our screens, but now we’re
beginning to realize that we have the power to do address these issues.
b. Political Climate
The political climate of the past decade has unnerved many Americans and has
caused them to look to business to advocate for and solve societal issues that the current
government can’t seem to. Many Americans are unhappy with the way that the
government is handling serious issues that affect society and they’re continually losing
trust in these institutions. A 2019 Gallup poll reported that 41 percent of Americans trust
the U.S. government to handle international problems, while only 35 percent trusted the
Ortega 71
government to handle domestic issues (Brenan). Moreover, Trump’s rollbacks of EPA
regulations are causing an uproar among environmentally educated individuals (Johnson).
Government rollbacks like this have motivated individuals to align themselves with
companies willing to do something about it. Patagonia is one of very few companies
standing up against government and consumers have been buying its products in
solidarity (Wolf). “We’re seeing a lot of consumers actually making purchase decisions
based off of what corporations are doing to counteract what the current government is
rolling back,” remarks Grey. We’re living in political tribulation, and we’re counting on
corporations to do something about it.
c. Consumers
Out of this new age of technology emerged an empowered consumer ready to
make their voice heard. Social media has created a new environment for the court of
public opinion. If consumers aren’t satisfied with the way a corporation is handling their
business or tackling a social issue, they’re not afraid to make their concerns known. Over
50 percent of consumers will complain if they are disappointed with a brand’s opinions
on social issues or how they respond to them (Accenture Strategy 3). Companies have
always dealt with customer complaints. However, social media has opened up an entirely
new playing field. “The social media model gives consumers the power to influence each
other—more than companies influence the consumers anymore,” says Professor Jackson.
“[Corporations] can’t just come back by having a fancy marketing campaign.
[Corporations] need to actually demonstrate through actions that [they] mean to do
good.” Consumers are holding companies to a higher standard, and social media is the
tool of choice to keep these companies accountable. This technological shift in society
Ortega 72
has not only impacted the way consumers operate, but it’s also affected their expectations
of companies. Consumers also continue to believe that corporations are obligated to
address issues that affect more than their everyday business practices (Cone
Communications, “2017 CSR Study” 9). As consumers become more aware of what’s
happening in the world around them, they are more often prioritizing their beliefs and
values during purchase decisions to drive global change. In its 2017 CSR Study, Cone
Communications expressed the change in consumers:
Today’s consumers are smart and empowered. They have the propensity to dig in
to do their own research. They are willing to use their voice and dollars as a force
for change, becoming a company’s staunchest supports—or detractors. Now is the
time to not only stand for but stand up for something that matters (35)
Say goodbye to the passive consumer. They’re standing up for what they believe in and
aren’t afraid to call on companies to do the same. Corporations are being watched like
never before, and consumers are inviting them to use their resources to drive social
change. The question is—which companies are going to step up and accept the
invitation?
C. Benefits for Companies
1. Accountability
Some observers might think that the talk of CSR has reached its limit, but
studying the industry proves to be a corporation, being accountable is of the utmost
importance. CSR is anchored on the belief that corporations have a responsibility to
society. However, responsibility only goes so far. Companies may agree that they have
social responsibilities and proclaim that they are going to do X Y and Z to fulfill them—
Ortega 73
but how many companies follow through on their promises? While we advocate for
social responsibility, we should also be advocating for accountability. Responsibility can
be shared, but accountability is about being responsible solely for your own actions.
Thus, although corporations have the responsibility to give back to society, they still must
also be held accountable for what they do and do not do. Studying and writing about CSR
and how it can be improved helps put a little pressure on those corporations still not
doing enough. It also holds the ones that are engaging in CSR accountable. It’s up to
scholars, business professionals, and consumers to be up to date on the CSR industry. It’s
the only way we’ll be able to ensure that corporations are fulfilling their promises of
social responsibility.
2. Company Guidance
Continuing the CSR conversation is also a way for organizations to learn what not
to do and how to do it right. Studying the subject guides companies along the right path
to CSR. The industry and market are always changing and staying up to date on what’s
happening in the CSR field will give companies a better chance at success with their
programming. I will caution that each CSR program is—or should be—designed with a
specific company in mind, therefore, what works for one company may not necessarily
work for another.
However, there are still general principles companies can learn from one another.
At the very core, these principles can be summarized into two key points. First,
companies must focus on the alignment of their competencies and values. They must
establish what the values of the company are and determine what resources they can use
to carry out CSR programs. “Your action and your criteria [as a company] should all tie
Ortega 74
to the mission and values. The values of an organization should support the mission of
the organization. The mission and the values together should essentially define the
parameters of your CSR work,” said Jackson. Warner Bros. is a company that does this
exceptionally well through WB Good, the company’s CSR branch (see fig. 7). As an
entertainment company, Warner Bros. uses its resources and passion for storytelling to
empower youth, create more opportunity for diverse voices, and support sustainable
production (Warner Bros. Entertainment). While discussing principles of CSR that
Warner Bros. follows, Wilson confirmed the importance of alignment:
[While planning CSR programs], the first thing would be aligning your core
competencies and your values. Otherwise, there isn’t a way to build a deeper
partnership and it becomes more like checkbook philanthropy. That’s not to say
that writing checks to organizations that don’t necessarily fit into, say the
entertainment industry, is ill spent. There’s just a more strategic way to focus your
funding. That alignment is key. A one dollar investment should equal so much
more than one dollar of impact.
Alignment should be the foundation of any CSR program. Not only will it create an
authentic approach to CSR, but it will also ensure that a company’s money is well spent.
Secondly, and possibly most importantly, companies must find the right partners. The
real issue here for companies is accepting that they may not be qualified to handle the
entirety of a CSR program. “An important piece in the process is knowing what you’re
good at and knowing when you need a partner. It’s about understanding what your gaps
may be and then bringing in partners that can fill those gaps,” said Wilson. Through
strong partnerships, CSR programs can flourish and create sustainable impact. It’s easy to
Ortega 75
see why some companies resort to just philanthropy or one-off programs or campaigns.
Building out CSR programs is hard, but this is why studying the subject is so important.
Corporations are continuing to engage in CSR, but few have learned how to do it right.
Being able to see the companies that have a firm grasp on CSR gives the others who are
not quite there a better understanding of what works.
Fig. 7— Warner Bros. Entertainment WB Good Case Study

VII. THE PATH TO SUSTAINABLE IMPACT
Corporate social responsibility is not an easy business strategy to implement. Although
some would like to think they can just type up a meaningful mission statement tied to a cause
and call it day, there’s much more to CSR than that. Not being bad is not good enough. For-
profit corporations need to do better. “One of the biggest challenges [of CSR] is that if a
company is doing anything in CSR, they think they’re doing great,” said Grey. “It’s really hard
to tell a company that’s been around forever—who’s doing some good things—that they could
Ortega 76
be doing better.” Companies need to use their resources to drive social change and be proactive
in their efforts. It’s the only way we’re going to create sustainable change in our world.
In order to lead as a responsible company, it’s simply not enough to address internal
operational challenges—businesses must take the lead and push progress on issues that
go straight to the hearts and minds of Americans and communicate company values in a
way that’s relevant and authentic. (Cone Communications, “2017 CSR study” 35)
CSR must to continue to evolve in order to make a real societal impact. One-off campaigns and
programs aren’t cutting it anymore. Companies need to reevaluate their CSR work and identify
ways in which it can become more sustainable. By being more proactive in CSR, companies can
identify and prevent social and environmental issues rather than simply responding to them after
they occur. There are far too many communities out there waiting for a helping hand and not
enough companies using their resources wisely to help support them. Communities need more
than a yearly donation. They need companies who are willing to come alongside them and uplift
them in ways that create sustainable change in the world.

Ortega 77
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Accenture Strategy. To Affinity and Beyond: From Me to We, the Rise of the Purpose-Led Brand. Research
Report, 5 Dec. 2018, https://www.accenture.com/t20181205T121039Z__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/Thought-
Leadership-Assets/PDF/Accenture-CompetitiveAgility-GCPR-POV.pdf#zoom=50.
Adobe Inc. “See Which Brands Made the Most of the Second Screen.” USA Ad Meter, 2 Feb. 2015,
https://admeter.usatoday.com/2015/02/02/adobe-second-screen-top-10/.
Agarwal, Dimple, et al. 2018 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends: The Rise of the Social Enterprise.
Research Report, Deloitte Insights, 28 Mar. 2018, pp. 1–102,
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/HCTrends2018/2018-HCtrends_Rise-of-the-
social-enterprise.pdf.
Agrawal, Jaweed, and Nina Kaleem. “These Are the Florida Students behind the Movement to End Gun
Violence.” Los Angeles Times, 23 Feb. 2018, https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-parkland-student-
activists-20180223-htmlstory.html.
Aggarwal, Priyanka, and Aarti Kadyan. “Greenwashing: The Darker Side Of CSR.” Indian Journal of Applied
Research, vol. 4, no. 3, Mar. 2014, pp. 61–66, doi:10.15373/2249555X/MAR2014/20.
Alton, Larry. “How Corporate Distrust Is Reshaping Advertising.” Adweek, 17 Aug. 2017,
https://www.adweek.com/digital/larry-alton-guest-post-how-corporate-distrust-is-reshaping-advertising/.
Alton, Larry. “How Millennials Are Reshaping What’s Important In Corporate Culture.” Forbes, 20 June 2017,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryalton/2017/06/20/how-millennials-are-reshaping-whats-important-in-
corporate-culture/.
Alton, Larry. “Millennials Are Struggling To Get Jobs - Here’s Why, And What To Do About It.” Forbes, 22
Dec. 2016, https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryalton/2016/12/22/millennials-are-struggling-to-get-jobs-
heres-why-and-what-to-do-about-it/.
Alvarez & Marsal. Did You Know? “Neo Age”: Facts From Our Executive Compensation and Benefits (ECB)
Proprietary Databases. Alvarez & Marsal, 10 Nov. 2014, pp. 1–6,
https://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/sites/default/files/files/Age-CEO-CFO-COO.pdf.
Ortega 78
Always. #LikeAGirl - Unstoppable. Case Study, Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), 2016.
Always. Helping Girls Across the World. https://always.com/en-us/about-us/girl-empowerment-throughout-
the-world-with-always. Accessed 10 Jan. 2019.
Alter, Charlotte. “How Parkland Students Are Taking on Politicians in the Gun Control Battle.” Time, 22 Mar.
2018, http://time.com/longform/never-again-movement/.
“Americans More Loyal And Willing To Defend Purpose-Driven Brands, According To New Research By
Cone.” Cision: PR Newswire, Cision: PR Newswire, 30 May 2018, www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/americans-more-loyal-and-willing-to-defend-purpose-driven-brands-according-to-new-research-
by-cone-300656014.html.
Andjelic, Ana. “Are Luxury Brands Taking Their Eyes off Gen X?” Medium, 13 Feb. 2017,
https://medium.com/@andjelicaaa/are-luxury-brands-taking-their-eyes-off-gen-x-f5611c82f2a4.
Andrews, Travis M. “It’s Official: Millennials Have Surpassed Baby Boomers to Become America’s Largest
Living Generation - The Washington Post.” The Washington Post, 26 Apr. 2016,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.
“Anheuser-Busch Doubles Emergency Relief Drinking Water Production Capacity.” Anheuser-Busch,
Anheuser-Busch, 12 Sept. 2018, www.anheuser-busch.com/newsroom/20071/09/anheuser-busch-
doubles-emergency-relief-drinking-water-productio.html.
Awesomeness TV, and Trendera. Gen Z: The Audience You Can’t Ignore. Research Report, Mar. 2017, pp. 1–
84, https://awesomenesstvnetwork.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/awesomeness_report_final1.pdf.
Baic, Alexander, et al. “Gauging Long-Term Impact in the Social Sector.” Boston Consulting Group, 17 Feb.
2016, https://www.bcg.com/publications/2016/innovation-strategy-gauging-long-term-impact-social-
sector.aspx.
Baines, Peter. “Philanthropy vs. Corporate Social Responsibility.” The CEO Magazine, 6 Apr. 2016,
https://www.theceomagazine.com/business/philanthropy/philanthropy-vs-corporate-social-responsibility/.
Ortega 79
Balch, Oliver. “Measuring Social Performance Is Difficult but Essential.” The Guardian, 2 Sept. 2011,
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/measuring-companies-social-impact-
performance.
Barca, Jerry. “Florida School Shooting Prompts Dick’s Sporting Goods To End Sale Of Assault Weapons.”
Forbes, 28 Feb. 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybarca/2018/02/28/florida-school-shooting-
prompts-dicks-sporting-goods-to-end-sale-of-assault-weapons/#651545a45cbb.
Barnes, Abigail. “Xconomy: Joining Trend, WI Creates New Business Entity: Benefit Corporations.”
Xconomy, 29 Nov. 2017, https://xconomy.com/wisconsin/2017/11/29/joining-trend-wi-creates-new-
business-entity-benefit-corporations/.
Barnes & Noble College. Getting to Know Gen Z: Exploring Middle and High Schoolers’ Expectations for
Higher Education. Research Report, Barnes & Noble College, pp. 1–10, https://next.bncollege.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/Gen-Z-Research-Report-Final.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan. 2019.
Becker-Olsen, Karen L., et al. “The Impact of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer
Behavior.” Journal of Business Research, vol. 59, no. 1, Elsevier Inc., 2006, pp. 46–53,
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001.
Beer, Jeff. “How Patagonia Grows Every Time It Amplifies Its Social Mission.” Fast Company, 21 Feb. 2018,
https://www.fastcompany.com/40525452/how-patagonia-grows-every-time-it-amplifies-its-social-
mission.
Berman, Jillian. “Why That ‘Like A Girl’ Super Bowl Ad Was So Groundbreaking.” Huffington Post, 2 Feb.
2015, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/02/always-super-bowl-ad_n_6598328.html.
Benefit Corporation. “FAQ.” Benefit Corporation, http://benefitcorp.net/faq. Accessed 10 Jan. 2019.
Bersin, Josh. “The Rise Of The Social Enterprise: A New Paradigm For Business.” Forbes, 3 Apr. 2018,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/04/03/the-rise-of-the-social-enterprise-a-new-paradigm-
for-business/.
“Better Quality of Work Life Is Worth a $7,600 Pay Cut for Millennials.” BusinessWire, BusinessWire, 7 Apr.
2016, www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160407005736/en/Quality-Work-Life-Worth-7600-Pay-Cut.
Ortega 80
Bhattacharya, C, and Sen, Sankar. “Consumer-Company Identification: A Framework for Understanding
Consumers’ Relationships with Companies.” Journal of Marketing, vol. 67, no. 2, SAGE Publications,
Inc., Apr. 2003, pp. 76–88, doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609.
BLab. “About B Lab.” BCorporation.net, https://bcorporation.net/about-b-lab. Accessed 10 Jan. 2019.
Bomey, Nathan. “NRA Fallout: Companies Cut Ties after Parkland, Fla., School Shooting.” USA Today, 26
Feb. 2018, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/02/26/nra-companies-parkland-school-
shooting/372271002/.
Bonnie, Emily. “Employee Retention: The True Cost of Losing Your Best Talent.” Wrike, 17 Apr. 2017,
https://www.wrike.com/blog/employee-retention-true-cost-losing-best-talent/.
Boschee, Jerr. "Merging the Profit Motive and Moral Imperatives: The Rise of Social Enterprise in the United
States." Geneva: The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs, 2010, pp.1-7.
Boschee, Jerr, and Jim McClurg. Toward a Better Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship: Some Important
Distinctions. 2003, pp.1-5.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/28028593/testtrtr.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIW
OWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1553322515&Signature=%2FWShuvuIY7iFDHCRbcXvDQKoU%2Fg
%3D&response-content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DToward_a_better_understanding_of_social.pdf.
Brack, Jessica, and Kip Kelly. Maximizing Millennials in the Workplace. White Paper, UNC Kenan-Flagler
Business School, 2012, pp. 1–15, https://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/executive-development/custom-
programs/~/media/files/documents/executive-development/maximizing-millennials-in-the-workplace.pdf.
Brenan, Megan. “Americans’ Trust in Government to Handle Problems at New Low.” Gallup.Com, 31 Jan.
2019, https://news.gallup.com/poll/246371/americans-trust-government-handle-problems-new-low.aspx.
Brønn, Peggy Simcic, and Albana Belliu Vrioni. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Cause-Related
Marketing: An Overview.” International Journal of Advertising, vol. 20, Mar. 2015, pp. 207–22,
doi:10.1080/02650487.2001.11104887.
Ortega 81
Carroll, Archie B. “Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct.” Business &
Society, vol. 38, no. 3, Sept. 1999, pp. 268–95. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/000765039903800303.
Chen, James. “Corporate Citizenship.” Investopedia,
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporatecitizenship.asp. Accessed 31 Jan. 2019.
Chen, James. “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).” Investopedia, Investopedia, 11 Feb. 2019,
www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corp-social-responsibility.asp.
Cloos, Kassondra. “Yvon Chouinard Stars in Patagonia’s First TV Ad.” SNEWS, 20 Aug. 2017,
https://www.snewsnet.com/gear/chouinard-stars-patagonia-commercial-national-monuments.
Coffee, Patrick. “Volkswagen Confirms $4.3 Billion False Advertising Emissions Settlement.” AgencySpy, 10
Jan. 2017, http://adweek.it/2jAEDrg.
Comaford, Christine. “Got Millennials? Here’s The Culture They Need.” Forbes, 14 May 2016,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinecomaford/2016/05/14/got-millennials-heres-the-culture-they-need/.
“Community Relations.” Inc.com, https://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/community-relations.html. Accessed 13
Dec. 2018.
Cone Communications. 2017 Cone Communications CSR Study. Research Report, Cone Communications. 17
May 2017, pp. 1–37, http://www.conecomm.com/research-blog/2017-csr-study.
Cone Communications, and Porter Novelli. 2018 Cone/Porter Novelli Purpose Study. Research Report, Cone
Communications/ Porter Novelli, 30 May 2018, pp. 1–28, http://www.conecomm.com/2018-purpose-
study-pdf/.
Cone Communications. “Top 10 Types Of Cause Promotions.” Cone Communications,
http://www.conecomm.com/insights-blog/top-10-types-of-cause-promotions. Accessed 8 Dec. 2018.
“Cone Releases First Cause Consumer Behavior Study.” Cone Communications, Cone Communications, 1 Oct.
2008, www.conecomm.com/news-blog/cone-releases-first-cause-consumer-behavior-study.
Conerly, Bill. “Companies Need To Know The Dollar Cost Of Employee Turnover.” Forbes, 12 Aug. 2018,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2018/08/12/companies-need-to-know-the-dollar-cost-of-
employee-turnover/.
Ortega 82
Crowl, Jonathan. “Are Ethical Branding Campaigns Causing Consumer Fatigue?” Skyword, 28 July 2017,
https://www.skyword.com/contentstandard/marketing/ethical-branding-campaigns-causing-consumer-
fatigue/.
D&AD. “Case Study: Always #LikeAGirl.” D&AD, 2015, https://www.dandad.org/en/d-ad-always-like-a-girl-
campaign-case-study-insights/.
Daniels Fund Ethics Initiative. Managing Social Responsibility and Growth at Ben & Jerry’s. Case Study,
University of New Mexico, pp. 1–7, https://danielsethics.mgt.unm.edu/pdf/ben-and-jerry-case-.pdf.
Davis, Keith. “Can Business Afford to Ignore Social Responsibilities?” California Management Review, vol. 2,
no. 3, Apr. 1960, pp. 70–76. SAGE Journals, doi:10.2307/41166246.
De Bakker, Frank G. A., et al. “A Bibliometric Analysis of 30 Years of Research and Theory on Corporate
Social Responsibility and Corporate Social Performance.” Business & Society, vol. 44, no. 3, Sept. 2005,
pp. 283–317. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/0007650305278086.
Diaz, Ann-Christine. “Always’ Hard-Hitting ‘Like a Girl’ Wins 2015 Outstanding Commercial Emmy.”
AdAge, 13 Sept. 2015, https://adage.com/article/advertising/always-like-a-girl-wins-2015-emmy-
outstanding-commercial/300343/.
Dimock, Michael. “Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins.” Pew Research
Center, 17 Jan. 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-
generation-z-begins/.
“Drive for Statue of Liberty Nears $100 Million.” The New York Times, 19 Aug. 1984. NYTimes.com,
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/19/nyregion/drive-for-statue-of-liberty-nears-100-million.html.
Dua, Tanya. “'People's BS Detectors Are High': Brands Have given Consumers Cause Fatigue.” Digiday, 14
Apr. 2016, digiday.com/marketing/brands-cause-marketing-fatigue/.
Edelman. 2018 Edelman Earned Brand Global Report: Brands Take a Stand. Edelman, Oct. 2018, pp. 1–32,
https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2018-
10/2018_Edelman_Earned_Brand_Global_Report.pdf.
Ortega 83
Edelman. 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer: The State of Trust in Business. Edelman, 2018, 2018 Edelman Trust
Barometer: The State of Trust in Business, www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2018-
10/2018_Edelman_Trust_Barometer_State_of_Business.pdf.
Edgecliffe-Johnson, Andrew. “Beyond the Bottom Line: Should Business Put Purpose before Profit?”
Financial Times, 3 Jan. 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/a84647f8-0d0b-11e9-a3aa-118c761d2745.
Elghandour, Noha, and Toka Adel. “Corporate Social Responsibility Measurement: Case Study on Toshiba
Corporation.” Organization Management Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, May 2008, pp. 29–39, doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.36149.88809
Elsey, Wayne. “Why Your Company Should Be More Socially Responsible.” Forbes, 30 May 2018,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinessdevelopmentcouncil/2018/05/30/why-your-company-should-
be-more-socially-responsible/.
Elving, Wim J. L. “Scepticism and Corporate Social Responsibility Communications: The Influence of Fit and
Reputation.” Journal of Marketing Communications, vol. 19, no. 4, Sept. 2013, pp. 277–92. Taylor and
Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/13527266.2011.631569.
Epstein-Reeves, James. “Consumers Overwhelmingly Want CSR.” Forbes, 15 Dec. 2010,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2010/12/15/new-study-consumers-demand-companies-implement-csr-
programs/.
Epstein-Reeves, James. “So You Call This CSR? Or One of Its Many Other Names?” Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2011/07/28/so-you-call-this-csr-or-one-of-its-many-other-names/.
Accessed 4 Dec. 2018.
Ernst and Young. Global Generations: A Global Study on Work-Life Challenges Across Generations. Research
Report, Ernst and Young, 2015, pp. 1–15, https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-global-
generations-a-global-study-on-work-life-challenges-across-generations/$FILE/EY-global-generations-a-
global-study-on-work-life-challenges-across-generations.pdf.
Federal Trade Commission. “Children.” Federal Trade Commission, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/advertising-and-marketing/children. Accessed 19 Jan. 2019.
Ortega 84
Ferle, Carrie La, and Wei-Na Lee. “Attitudes Toward Advertising.” Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, vol. 15, no. 2, Jan. 2003, pp. 5–23. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1300/J046v15n02_02.
Financial Times. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Definition from Financial Times Lexicon.
http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=corporate-social-responsibility--(CSR). Accessed 5 Dec. 2018.
Finch, Jeremy. “What Is Generation Z, And What Does It Want?” Fast Company, 4 May 2015,
https://www.fastcompany.com/3045317/what-is-generation-z-and-what-does-it-want.
Fink, Larry. “A Sense of Purpose.” BlackRock, 2018, https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-
relations/2018-larry-fink-ceo-letter.
Fornell, Claes, et al. “Customer Satisfaction and Stock Prices: High Returns, Low risk.” Journal of Marketing,
vol. 70, no. 1, American Marketing Association, Jan. 2006, pp. 3–14, doi:10.1509/jmkg.2006.70.1.3.
Friedman, Milton. “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” Corporate Ethics and
Corporate Governance, edited by Walther Ch Zimmerli et al., Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 173–
78. Crossref, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14.
Fombrun, Charles J. Reputation, Value and Financial Performance. Research Report, Reputation Institute, Oct.
2016, pp. 1–9, https://www.reputationinstitute.com/research/reputation-value-and-financial-performance.
Gallup. “Confidence in Institutions.” Gallup, 2016, https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/Confidence-
Institutions.aspx.
Garvey, Anna. “The Oregon Trail Generation: Life Before and After Mainstream Tech.” Social Media Week,
21 Apr. 2015, https://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/04/oregon-trail-generation/.
Gillespie, Nick. “Millennials Are Selfish and Entitled. Blame Helicopter Parents. | Time.” Time, 21 Aug. 2014,
http://time.com/3154186/millennials-selfish-entitled-helicopter-parenting/.
Global Reporting Initiative. “Global Sustainability Standards Board.” Global Reporting Initiative,
https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gssb-and-standard-setting/. Accessed 10 Jan. 2019.
Gordon, Jasmine. “Understanding Baby Boomers At Work: Fast Facts For CHROs.” Forbes, 11 Apr. 2016,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adp/2016/04/11/understanding-baby-boomers-at-work-fast-facts-for-chros/.
Ortega 85
Gottlieb, Martin. “Cashing in on Higher Cause.” The New York Times, 6 July 1986. NYTimes.com,
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/06/business/cashing-in-on-higher-cause.html.
Gregory Thomas, Susan. “A Teacher’s Guide to Generation X Parents.” Edutopia, 19 Jan. 2010,
https://www.edutopia.org/generation-x-parents-relationships-guide.
Gruca, Thomas, and Rego, Lopo. “Customer Satisfaction, Cash Flow, and Shareholder Value.” Journal of
Marketing, vol. 69, no. 3, SAGE Publications, Inc., July 2005, pp. 115–30,
doi:10.1509/jmkg.69.3.115.66364.
Hameed, Bilal. “Everyone Dislikes Ads... But Social Media And Mobile Users Hate Them The Most.” Adweek,
1 Feb. 2011, https://www.adweek.com/digital/everyone-dislikes-ads-but-social-media-and-mobile-users-
hate-them-the-most/.
Harvard Kennedy School. “Student Debt Viewed as Major Problem; Financial Considerations Important Factor
for Most Millennials When Considering Whether to Pursue College.” The Institute of Politics at Harvard
University, https://iop.harvard.edu/student-debt-viewed-major-problem-financial-considerations-
important-factor-most-millennials-when. Accessed 5 Jan. 2019.
Hein, Bettina. “New Cause-Related Marketing Research: Why Brands Shouldn’t Be Afraid to Take a Stand.”
Think with Google, July 2017, https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/advertising-channels/video/cause-
related-marketing-purpose-driven-ads/.
Hespenheide, Eric. “How the New GRI Standards Will Benefit Your Business.” Sustainable Business HK, 2
Dec. 2016, http://sustainablebusiness.org.hk/gri-standards/.
History.com Editors. “Vietnam War Protests.” HISTORY, 22 Feb. 2010,
https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/vietnam-war-protests.
Hotten, Russell. “Volkswagen: The Scandal Explained.” BBC, 10 Dec. 2015,
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772.
Iyengar, Sheena. “The Art of Choosing.” TED, July 2010,
https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing?language=en.
Jeep. “Jeep History in the 1940s.” Jeep, https://www.jeep.com/history/1940s.html. Accessed 10 Dec. 2018.
Ortega 86
Jenkins, Ryan. “The Complete Story of the Millennial Generation.” Inc.Com, 10 July 2017,
https://www.inc.com/ryan-jenkins/the-complete-story-of-the-millennial-generation.html.
Jenkins, Ryan. “Why Millennials Are So Entitled (Parents Are Partly Blamed)” Inc.Com, 7 Aug. 2017,
https://www.inc.com/ryan-jenkins/this-is-why-millennials-are-entitled.html.
Johnson, Nathanael. “Trump’s EPA Is Rolling Back Another Anti-Coal Regulation.” Grist, 3 Jan. 2019,
https://grist.org/article/trumps-epa-is-rolling-back-another-anti-coal-regulation/.
Joireman, Jeff, et al. “Images Paired with Concrete Claims Improve Skeptical Consumers’ Responses to
Advertising Promoting a Firm’s Good Deeds.” Journal of Marketing Communications, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan.
2016, pp. 83–102. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/13527266.2015.1126757.
Jones, Ray, and Audrey J. Murrell. “Signaling Positive Corporate Social Performance.” Business and Society;
Chicago, vol. 40, no. 1, Mar. 2001, pp. 59–78.
Kenton, Will. “Baby Boomer.” Investopedia, 10 Feb. 2019,
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/baby_boomer.asp.
Keys, Tracey, et al. Making the Most of Corporate Social Responsibility | McKinsey.
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/making-the-most-of-corporate-social-
responsibility. Accessed 4 Dec. 2018.
Kline, Maureen. “Super Bowl Ads Show Brands Taking Stands on Social and Environmental Issues.” Inc.Com,
4 Feb. 2018, https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/super-bowl-ads-show-brands-taking-stands-on-social-
environmental-issues.html.
Kolb, Robert W., ed. Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Sage Publications, 2007.
KPMG. The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017. Research Report, KPMG, 2017, pp.
1–58. https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2017/10/the-kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-
reporting-2017.html.
Lebowitz, Shana. “There’s a Term for People Born in the Early 80s Who Don’t Feel like a Millennial or a Gen
X-Er — Here’s Everything We Know.” Business Insider, 10 Mar. 2018,
https://www.businessinsider.com/xennials-born-between-millennials-and-gen-x-2017-11.
Ortega 87
Lellahom, Monaem Ben. “Cause-Related Marketing: A Win-Win For Brands, Charities And The Consumer.”
Entrepreneur, 18 July 2017, https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297333.
Levi Strauss. “Heritage Timeline.” Levi Strauss, http://levistrauss.com/our-story/heritage-timeline/heritage-
timeline-2/. Accessed 5 Dec. 2018.
Love, Jay. “Benefit Corporation Vs. Certified B Corp in Plain English.” Bloomerang, 17 Aug. 2015,
https://bloomerang.co/blog/benefit-corporation-vs-certified-b-corp-in-plain-english/.
Luo, Xueming, and Chitra Bhanu Bhattacharya. "Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and
market value." Journal of Marketing, vol. 70, no.4, 2006, pp. 1-18.
LUSH. “LUSH: Our Values.” LUSH, https://www.lushusa.com/story?cid=article_our-values-lush. Accessed 9
Jan. 2019.
Martin, Anna Sofia. “The Undetected Influence Of Generation X.” Forbes, 13 Sept. 2016,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2016/09/13/the-undetected-influence-of-generation-x/.
McAllister, Chris. “Uncommon Sense: Are Companies Truly Committed to Social Responsibility?” Nielsen, 6
Jan. 2016, https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/uncommon-sense-are-companies-truly-
committed-to-social-responsibility.html.
McDonald, Victoria. Power and Responsibility: How Corporate Social Responsibility Can Be Used as a
Retention Tactic for Millennials in the Workplace. Regis University, 2017,
https://epublications.regis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1818&context=theses.
McGlone, Teresa, et al. “Corporate Social Responsibility and the Millennials.” Journal of Education for
Business, vol. 86, no. 4, Apr. 2011, pp. 195–200. Taylor and Francis+NEJM,
doi:10.1080/08832323.2010.502912.
Mehta, Abhilasha. “Advertising Attitudes and Advertising Effectiveness.” Journal of Advertising Research,
vol. 40, no. 3, World Advertising Research Center Ltd., May 2000, pp. 67–72, doi:10.2501/JAR-40-3-67-
72.
Meier, Stephan, and Lea Cassar. “Stop Talking About How CSR Helps Your Bottom Line.” Harvard Business
Review, 31 Jan. 2018, https://hbr.org/2018/01/stop-talking-about-how-csr-helps-your-bottom-line.
Ortega 88
Mellahi, Kamel. “Measuring CSR Is Difficult and Is Not Always Desirable.” Warwick Business School, 18
Oct. 2013, https://www.wbs.ac.uk/news/measuring-csr-comes-with-problems-and-is-not-always-
desirable/.
“Millennials Outnumber Baby Boomers and Are Far More Diverse, Census Bureau Reports.” United States
Census Bureau, 25 June 2015, www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html.
Miller, Ryan. “Are You a Xennial? How to Tell If You’re the Microgeneration between Gen X and
Millennial.” USA TODAY, 20 Dec. 2018,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/20/xennials-millennials-generation-x-
microgeneration/2369230002/.
Morrison, Edward, and Larry Bridwell. “Consumer Social Responsibility - The True Corporate Social
Responsibility.” Competition Forum; Indiana, vol. 9, no. 1, 2011, pp. 144–49.
Mullerat, Ramon. “Corporate Social Responsibility: A European Perspective.” The Jean Monnet/Robert
Schuman Paper Series, vol. 13, no. 6, June 2013.
Mullerat, Ramon. International Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Corporations in the Economic
Order of the 21st Century. Kluwer Law International B.V., 2010.
Murphy, Chris B. “Why Is Social Responsibility Important to a Business?” Investopedia, 18 June 2018,
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041015/why-social-responsibility-important-business.asp.
Nace, Trevor. “After 44 Years Patagonia Released Its First Commercial & It’s Not About Clothing.” Forbes,
24 Aug. 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/08/24/44-years-patagonia-released-first-
commercial-clothing/.
Natarajan, Thamaraiselvan, et al. “A Journey of Cause Related Marketing from 1988 to 2016.” ResearchGate,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309516865_A_Journey_of_Cause_Related_Marketing_from_1
988_to_2016. Accessed 11 Dec. 2018.
National Park Service. Restoring the Statue - Statue Of Liberty National Monument (U.S. National Park
Service). https://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyculture/places_restoring.htm. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.
Ortega 89
Nielsen. “The Global, Socially Conscious Consumer.” Nielsen, 27 Mar. 2012,
https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2012/the-global-socially-conscious-consumer.html.
Nilsson, Sofie, and Michelle Spalding Wicksell. CSR Reporting Influences by a Scandal: Does It Matter If the
Company Is Directly or Indirectly Involved? Lund University, 2015,
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8057167&fileOId=8057174.
Nudd, Tim. “Always ‘Like a Girl’ Adds the 2015 Emmy Award to Its Haul of Trophies.” Adweek, 14 Sept.
2015, https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/always-girl-adds-2015-emmy-award-its-haul-trophies-
166883/.
Nudd, Tim. “Audi Defends Its Super Bowl Ad About Equal Pay After It Quickly Becomes a Flashpoint.”
Adweek, 3 Feb. 2017, https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/audi-defends-its-super-bowl-ad-about-
equal-pay-after-it-quickly-becomes-a-flashpoint/.
Park, Sehyun. “Corporate Social Responsibility, Visibility, Reputation and Financial Performance: Empirical
Analysis on the Moderating and Mediating Variables from Korea.” Social Responsibility Journal, vol. 13,
no. 4, Emerald Publishing Limited, Oct. 2017, pp. 856–71, doi:10.1108/SRJ-01-2017-0012.
Parloff, Roger. “How VW Paid $25 Billion for Dieselgate — and Got Off Easy.” Fortune, 6 Feb. 2018,
http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/volkswagen-vw-emissions-scandal-penalties/.
Patagonia. “History of Patagonia.” Patagonia. https://www.patagonia.com/company-history.html. Accessed 5
Dec. 2018.
Patel, Deep. “8 Ways Generation Z Will Differ From Millennials In The Workplace.” Forbes, 21 Sept. 2017,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/deeppatel/2017/09/21/8-ways-generation-z-will-differ-from-millennials-in-
the-workplace/#5fe7471076e5.
Patel, Deep. 10 Ways To Prepare For Gen Z In The Workplace. 29 Mar. 2017,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/deeppatel/2017/03/29/10-ways-to-prepare-for-gen-z-in-the-
workplace/#61d80c7929ee.
Ortega 90
Peloza, John. “Using Corporate Social Responsibility as Insurance for Financial Performance.” ResearchGate,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272585574_Using_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_as_Insura
nce_for_Financial_Performance. Accessed 5 Dec. 2018.
Peters, Richard, and Mullen, Michael. “Some Evidence of the Cumulative Effects of Corporate Social
Responsibility on Financial Performance.” Journal of Global Business Issues, vol. 3, no. 1, Apr. 2009, pp.
1–14, http://search.proquest.com/docview/223741070/.
Peterson, Hayley. “Millennials Are Old News — Here’s Everything You Should Know About Generation Z.”
Business Insider, 25 June 2014, https://www.businessinsider.com/generation-z-spending-habits-2014-6.
Petro, Greg. “Gen Z: New Gender Norms, Fake News, Frugality And The Rise Of Retail’s Next Power
Generation.” Forbes, 14 Oct. 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregpetro/2018/10/14/gen-z-new-
gender-norms-fake-news-frugality-and-the-rise-of-retails-next-power-generation/.
Pew Research Center. “Social Media Fact Sheet.” Pew Research Center, 5 Feb. 2018,
https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/.
Pontefract, Dan. “Faking Corporate Social Responsibility Does Not Fool Employees.” Forbes, 24 Sept. 2016,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2016/09/24/faking-corporate-social-responsibility-does-not-
fool-employees/#628fccd27994.
Pontefract, Dan. “Stop Confusing CSR With Purpose.” Forbes, 18 Nov. 2017,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2017/11/18/stop-confusing-csr-with-purpose/.
Porter, Jane. “Why Having Too Many Choices Is Making You Unhappy.” Fast Company, 4 June 2016,
https://www.fastcompany.com/3031364/why-having-too-many-choices-is-making-you-unhappy.
Preston, Caroline. “New Poll Shows Millennials Prefer Companies That Give Back.” Fortune, August 11,
20216, http://fortune.com/2016/08/11/millennials-philanthropy/.
PRWeek/Barkley. Cause Survey 2010: The Male Perspective.
https://www.prweek.com/article/1265906/cause-survey-2010-male-perspective. Accessed 11 Dec. 2018.
PSFK. “How To Understand The Fluid Identity Of Gen Z.” PSFK, 26 Dec. 2017,
https://www.psfk.com/2017/12/understand-fluid-identity-gen-z.html.
Ortega 91
Public Affairs Council. Taking a Stand: How Corporations Speak Out on Social Issues. Research Report,
Public Affairs Council, 2016, pp. 1–8, https://pac.org/wp-content/uploads/taking-a-stand.pdf.
PublicCity PR. Community Relations. https://www.publiccitypr.net/services/community-relations/. Accessed
11 Dec. 2018.
Purcell, Kristen, and Lee Rainie. “Americans Feel Better Informed Thanks to the Internet.” Pew Research
Center, 8 Dec. 2014, http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/12/08/better-informed/.
Purkayastha, Debapratim, and Rajiv Fernando. The Body Shop: Social Responsibility or Sustained
Greenwashing? Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, 2007, http://backup.oikos-
international.org/fileadmin/oikos-
international/international/Case_competition/Inspection_copy_ICFAI2007.pdf.
PwC. Millennials at Work: Reshaping the Workplace in Financial Services. Research Report, PwC, 2012, pp.
1–28, https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/financial-services/publications/assets/pwc-millenials-at-work.pdf.
Rampton, John. “Different Motivations for Different Generations of Workers: Boomers, Gen X, Millennials,
and Gen Z.” Inc.com, 17 Oct. 2017, https://www.inc.com/john-rampton/different-motivations-for-
different-generations-of-workers-boomers-gen-x-millennials-gen-z.html.
Rath, Julien. “Audi Is under a Heap of Criticism for Its Gender Pay Equality Super Bowl Ad.” Business
Insider, 3 Feb. 2017, https://www.businessinsider.com/audi-faces-critcism-for-gender-pay-equality-super-
bowl-ad-2017-2.
Reputation Institute. 2019 Macro-Trends on Reputation: What Every C-Suite Exec Should Know About
Reputation. Research Report, Reputation Institute, 15 Jan. 2019, pp. 1–62,
https://www.reputationinstitute.com/blog/2019-reputation-macro-trends-every-c-suite-exec-should-know.
Reputation Institute. Global RepTrak® 100: Powering the World’s Most Reputable Companies. Research
Report, May 2018, pp. 1–72, https://www.reputationinstitute.com/research/2018-global-reptrak.
Rochlin, Steve, et al. Defining the Competitive and Financial Advantages of Corporate Responsibility and
Sustainability. Research Report, IO Sustainability and Lewis Institute for Social Innovation at Babson
College, 2015, pp. 1–63, http://iosustainability.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Project-ROI-Report.pdf.
Ortega 92
Ryback, Ralph. “From Baby Boomers to Generation Z.” Psychology Today, 22 Feb. 2016,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-truisms-wellness/201602/baby-boomers-generation-z.
Safier, Rebecca. “Study Shows Student Debt Can Kill 75% of Millennials’ Average Net Worth.” Mangify
Money, 22 Oct. 2018, https://www.magnifymoney.com/blog/news/student-debt-kills-millennials-average-
net-worth/.
Schultz, E. J. “Why More Super Bowl Ads Are Touting Philanthropy.” AdAge, 29 Jan. 2018,
https://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/super-bowl-ads-hyundai-budweiser-philanthropic-
bent/312121/.
Scott, Ryan. “Is Anyone Actually Measuring Their Social Impact?” Forbes, 8 Aug. 2016,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/causeintegration/2016/08/08/is-anyone-actually-measuring-their-social-
impact/.
Shafrir, Doree. “Generation Catalano.” Slate, 24 Oct. 2011,
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2011/10/generation_catalano_the_generation_stuck_betwee
n_gen_x_and_the_m.single.html.
Sheikh, Sana‐ ur‐ Rehman, and Rian Beise‐ Zee. “Corporate Social Responsibility or Cause‐ related Marketing?
The Role of Cause Specificity of CSR.” Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 28, no. 1, Jan. 2011, pp.
27–39. emeraldinsight.com (Atypon), doi:10.1108/07363761111101921.
Sillis, Ben. “Social Enterprise Statistics: 6 Facts You Need to Know.” Red Bull, 13 Aug. 2018,
https://www.redbull.com/us-en/social-enterprise-stats.
Slater, Ben. “17 Crucial Recruiting Statistics for 2016.” Beamery, 2016, https://beamery.com/blog/recruiting-
statistics-2016.
Slotkin, Athan. “Xennials And How The Heck They’ll Save Us From Technology.” Forbes, 17 Sept. 2018,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeslacouncil/2018/09/17/xennials-and-how-the-heck-theyll-save-us-
from-technology/#6d22420337db.
Spengler, Tom. “Civic Engagement: Why Millennials Have Outpaced Seniors.” Huffington Post, 13 June 2014,
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-spengler/civic-engagement-why-mill_b_5492478.html.
Ortega 93
Stankorb, Sarah. “Reasonable People Disagree about the Post-Gen X, Pre-Millennial Generation.” GOOD, 25
Sept. 2014, https://www.good.is/articles/generation-xennials.
Starbucks. How Starbucks Plans to Make an Impact by 2020 and Beyond.
https://stories.starbucks.com/stories/2017/starbucks-2016-global-social-impact-report/. Accessed 20 Feb.
2019.
Stearns, Tom. “The Roots of Advertising: A Case Study In Cause-Related Marketing And How American
Express Helped Restore An Enduring Symbol of Freedom.” FARM - Buffalo Strategic Marketing
Communications, 23 Mar. 2016, https://www.growwithfarm.com/cause-related-marketing/.
Stein, Joel. “Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation.” Time, 20 May 2013, http://time.com/247/millennials-
the-me-me-me-generation/.
Stier, Kenneth. “Companies’ ‘Green’ Claims Often Misleading: Experts.” CNBC, 22 Apr. 2008,
https://www.cnbc.com/id/24256583.
Stole, Inger. “‘Cause-Related Marketing’: Why Social Change and Corporate Profits Don’t Mix.” PR Watch,
14 July 2006, https://www.prwatch.org/news/2006/07/4965/cause-related-marketing-why-social-change-
and-corporate-profits-don%E2%80%99t-mix.
Stole, Inger L. "Philanthropy as public relations: A critical perspective on cause marketing." International
Journal of Communication, vol. 2, 2008, pp. 20-40.
Stollen, Marleen, and Gisela Wolf. “There’s a Term for People Born in the Early 80’s Who Don’t Feel like a
Millennial or Gen Xer.” Business Insider, 10 Jan. 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com/people-born-
between-gen-x-millennials-xennials-2017-11.
“Sustainable Development Goals.” United Nations Development Programme,
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html. Accessed 11 Jan. 2019.
Sutton, Clay. “Millennial Unemployment Rate Stagnant At 12.8 Percent.” Generation Opportunity, 4 Mar.
2016, https://generationopportunity.org/press-release/millennial-unemployment-rate-stagnant-at-12-8-
percent/.
Ortega 94
Swanson, Ana. “There’s a Devastatingly Simple Explanation for America’s Economic Mess.” The Washington
Post, 7 Oct. 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/07/theres-a-devastatingly-
simple-explanation-for-americas-economic-mess/.
Taylor, Paul, and George Gao. “Generation X: America’s Neglected ‘Middle Child.’” Pew Research Center, 5
June 2014, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/05/generation-x-americas-neglected-middle-
child/.
The Coca-Cola Company. “2016 Sustainability Report: Women’s Economic Empowerment.” The Coca-Cola
Company, https://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/2016-womens-economic-empowerment. Accessed
20 Feb. 2019.
The Coca-Cola Company. “2017 Sustainability Report: Disclosure Index.” The Coca-Cola Company, 27 Aug.
2018, https://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/gri-index.
Thornley, Ben. “The Facts on U.S. Social Enterprise.” Huffington Post, 8 Nov. 2012,
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-thornley/social-enterprise_b_2090144.html.
“2015 Ad Meter Results.” USA Ad Meter, 2015, https://admeter.usatoday.com/results/2015.
“2016 Ad Meter Results.” USA Ad Meter, 2016, https://admeter.usatoday.com/results/2016.
“2017 Ad Meter Results.” USA Ad Meter, 2017, https://admeter.usatoday.com/results/2017.
“2018 Ad Meter Results.” USA Ad Meter, 2018, https://admeter.usatoday.com/results/2018.
Tugend, Alina. “The Paralyzing Problem of Too Many Choices.” The New York Times, The New York Times,
26 Feb. 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/your-money/27shortcuts.html.
USC Dornsife. “Thinking vs. Feeling: The Psychology of Advertising.” USC Dornsife, 10 Feb. 2017,
https://appliedpsychologydegree.usc.edu/blog/thinking-vs-feeling-the-psychology-of-advertising/.
“Using Narratives to Convey Health Information.” USC Annenberg, 28 Jan. 2019,
http://annenberg.usc.edu/news/faculty-research/using-narratives-convey-health-information.
“USO and Jeep® Launch ‘Operation SAFE Return’ to Support U.S. Troops and Their Families.” Cision,
Cision, 6 Feb. 2013, www.prweb.com/releases/2013/2/prweb10396125.htm.
Ortega 95
Vaccaro, Antonio. “CSR and Ethics: What Are the Reasons of so Much Skepticism?” IESE Business School
University of Navarra, 27 Jan. 2016, https://blog.iese.edu/ethics/2016/01/27/csr-what-are-the-reasons-of-
so-much-skepticism/.
Vanhamme, Joëlle, et al. "To do well by doing good: Improving corporate image through cause-related
marketing." Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 109, no.3, 2012, pp. 259-274
Visser, Wayne. “The Rise and Fall of CSR: Shapeshifting from CSR 1.0 to CSR 2.0.” ResearchGate,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318097743_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_CSR_Shapeshifting_from_
CSR_10_to_CSR_20. Accessed 5 Oct. 2018.
Visser, Wayne, et al. The A to Z of corporate social responsibility. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
Warby Parker. “Buy a Pair, Give a Pair.” Warby Parker, https://www.warbyparker.com. Accessed 8 Dec.
2018.
Warner Bros. Consumer Products. Scooby-Doo and the Mystery Inc. Gang Inspire More Meddling Kids and
Their Parents to “DOO GOOD” in Their Communities with a New Social Responsibility Initiative,
Scooby-Doo ‘DOO GOOD.’Burbank: BusinessWire, 2018.
Warner Bros. Entertainment. “Initiatives.” WB Good, https://www.wbgood.com/. Accessed 23 Nov. 2018.
Wattles, Jackie, et al. “Wells Fargo’s 20-Month Nightmare.” CNNMoney, 24 Apr. 2018,
https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/24/news/companies/wells-fargo-timeline-shareholders/index.html.
Wells Fargo. “‘We Will Become a Better, Stronger Wells Fargo.’” Wells Fargo Stories, 30 May 2018,
https://stories.wf.com/we-will-become-a-better-stronger-wells-fargo/.
WeWork. “Mission.” WeWork, https://www.wework.com/mission. Accessed 5 Jan. 2019.
Williams, Kaylene C., and Robert A. Page. “Marketing to the Generations.” Journal of Behavioral Studies in
Business, vol. 3, no. 1, Apr. 2011, pp. 1–17.
Willyerd, Karie. “What High Performers Want at Work.” Harvard Business Review, 18 Nov. 2014,
https://hbr.org/2014/11/what-high-performers-want-at-work.
Wolf, Cam. “Patagonia’s Anti-Trump Statement Was Massively Good for Business - GQ.” GQ, 12 Dec. 2017,
https://www.gq.com/story/patagonia-trump-lawsuit-sales-uptick.
Ortega 96
Woodward Thomas, Katherine. “Generation X Has the Key to a Happy Divorce.” Time, 13 Oct. 2015,
http://time.com/collection-post/4069940/divorce-generation-x/.
Yukhananov, Anna. “Consumers Love to Hate Ads but Won’t Pay to Escape Them.” Morning Consult, 23
Sept. 2017, https://morningconsult.com/2017/09/23/consumers-love-hate-ads-wont-pay-escape/.
Zabel, Keith L., et al. “Generational Differences in Work Ethic: Fact or Fiction?” Journal of Business and
Psychology, vol. 32, no. 3, Oct. 2016, pp. 301–15, doi:10.1007/s10869-016-9466-5.

Ortega 97
Appendix A: Industry Interviews

Janine Grey—Social Purpose Associate at Golin

Interview questions and answers:
Is there a clear distinction between terms such as, CSR, CRM or Corporate Philanthropy,
or do you think some can be used interchangeably?
CSR is sort of the catch-all phrase for all of these terms. When we get more granular with terms
like cause-related marketing, sustainability or corporate philanthropy, that’s when the educated
articles and people start to get more specific. For instance, you might have an article about CSR
and that might be all that they’re saying, but as you read into the details [you realize] that they’re
actually talking about cause-marketing or sustainability. I think sustainability is usually specific
to the environment. Community relations is usually specific to the social or human side, but not
always. It’s very convoluted. I definitely think that CSR is the catch-all term though. In 2018
when people talk about sustainability, they’re specifically talking about environmental practices.
Community relations is usually employee relations with non-profits. Cause-related marketing
gets used with CSR a lot, but there’s a clear difference because it’s marketing. Now when you
talk about corporate philanthropy, philanthropy is specific to check writing—giving money or in-
kind donations. Overall, I don’t think these names should be used interchangeably.
How would you define Corporate Social Responsibility?
It’s anything your corporation does for the betterment of society or the environment. Companies
are now dropping the social part because so many are focusing on the environment, so you’ll see
it a lot as CR or corporate responsibility which I think is going to be more popular. The social
part of it can be misleading because so many people are doing their work in environmental
initiatives. I would just define [CSR] as anything the company does for the betterment of society
or the earth going down from their employees to the communities they affect.
Have you noticed that there’s been a shift in CSR’s value to business and society?
Short answer, yes. Value to society has definitely increased and a lot of it has to do with the
political climate that we’re in. For instance, Trump’s roll back of the EPA and protections of
certain environmental areas. Now we’re seeing a lot of consumers making purchasing decisions
on what corporations are doing to counteract what the government is rolling back.
On the business side of things, we’re seeing more investors put their dollars where a company’s
responsibilities are. When Black Rock came out and told companies that they need to be
reporting on these things because they were going to start putting their money in companies that
are responsible—it was a pretty big deal. It’s not like investors weren’t doing that before, but it
wasn’t as publicly stated and it has never come from such a large company as Black Rock. After
Black Rock, we started seeing others do it and now we’re even seeing seed funders who will
only fund start-up companies that have value written into their mission. That’s a trend that’s
going to keep on going.
Ortega 98

So yes, there’s definitely been a shift. It’s been very significant within the last 5 years, especially
within the last 10. A lot of it has to do with consumer power. Millennials have the purchasing
power and they want to purchase from companies that are putting their money toward helping
society instead of harm society. Even more so now, Gen Z are 10 times more about [socially-
conscious consuming] than Millennials are. It’s just going to keep on pushing.
Why do you think large corporations, like Fortune 500 companies, should even have a CSR
department or engage in CSR initiatives?
Because if they don’t their reputation and bottom line is going to suffer. The Reputation Institute
comes out with the Global CSR Trek every year in which it details how reputation is linked to
CSR. Another organization found that CSR initiatives directly affect the bottom line. Between
those two things, CSR is too important to the business value and the bottom line for companies
to ignore. It’s no longer a nice to have, it’s a must have. Whereas in the early 2000s or the 90s,
donating money was all it took. Now you need to have a strategic plan of how you’re going to
help these people that you say you’re helping. With a lot of corporations that has to do with
money, but they’re getting better at identifying where their business makes a negative impact and
taking the steps to reverse that.
How would you define corporate social responsibility? Either personally or how you see
that Warner Bros. defines it.
If you look at the CSR environment as a whole, companies that have been more likely to fail
have either not been investing in CSR or their investment hasn’t been the right one. If you’re
going to invest in CSR, you have to not only do something that’s relevant to your company but
you also have to focus it in the right areas. That could mean investing in your employees.
Employees are your number one cheerleader, but when you look at CSR, not everyone thinks
investing in your employees is a CSR activity. They look at it as an external [activity], but in
reality, it’s also very much an internal thing.

You have to have people who understand where to invest when it come to your CSR practices.
Another change we’re seeing is with the C-suite. A lot of these executives are now more willing
to move forward with these [CSR] initiatives because they know the value and impact it will
have on the company. Ten or five years ago it was a lot different. When you look at hiring
decisions of corporations as they’re hiring C-suite executives, they’re specifically looking for
people who understand the importance of CSR and have a record of working in the social
purpose space.
What are the main challenges of CSR?
One of the biggest challenges [of CSR] is that if a company is doing anything in CSR they think
they’re doing great. It’s really hard to tell a company that’s been around for a long time, who’s
doing some good things, that they could be doing better. Corporations are very slow to move, so
it [the push for CSR] has to come from the top. If you have someone at the top who’s 100
percent invested, it’s [implanting CSR initiatives] going to happen faster. Being in the industry
Ortega 99
one of the biggest challenges is patience, but for corporations it’s realizing that they could be
doing more. Another challenge is that once they realize they could be doing more, taking the risk
to do more because doing more CSR means possibly alienating certain consumers. When you’re
in a business that could mean potentially losing customers. A great example is Nike with its
Kaepernick ad.
What do you think are some general principles corporations should follow when they’re
implementing CSR initiatives?
It has to be relevant to the corporation and their supply chain. I didn’t realize how much supply
chain effects certain abilities in CSR when I first started out. Once you make it relevant, it’s
important to stick to it and integrate it into your business. My old boss used to say, “Make sure
it’s built in and not bolted on.” First of all, consumers are going to see right through that. Second
of all, that’s how CSR plans fail—almost instantly. The biggest thing is ensuring that [CSR]
starts at the center and then flows outward—even if that means waiting five years to implement
it. That’s just the best way to do it.
What methods, if any, do you find the most effective in measuring CSR initiatives?
In order measure the success [of a CSR initiative], it has to be individual to each company. The
baseline would be understanding what the [company] goals are, asking if the goals include KPIs,
and determining if those KPIs are scientifically fact—especially when we’re talking about the
environment and sustainability. It’s really about establishing baseline measurements and
ensuring that the company is continually reporting against those. A really good indicator to see
if a company is measuring is if they’re part of the UNSDG agreement and are using the SDGs for
their CSR initiatives. You really have to pay attention to how they are recording and what are
they recording. Are they really recording or are they just giving you a bunch of fluff?

Disney, for example, does so many amazing things, but it’s a giant conglomerate of a
corporation. They don’t always want the public knowing all their emissions for example because
they own seven parks across the world plus all their cruise lines and resorts etc. When you look
at their report they’re not going to tell you what their baseline is because it’s going to put people
out. When you look at their report it’s pretty fluffy. It doesn’t tell you a whole lot of information
or hard data.
Have you noticed any differences in the way that CSR is practiced in different regions of
the country?
Yes, there are differences, but I think they’re more granular. For instance, on the West Coast
we’re all about plastic. It’s pretty much banned now in California. If you go to the Midwest,
they’re probably going to be thinking about plastic differently. You have to take into
consideration that they’re thousands of miles from the ocean, so it has less of a day-to-day
impact to them than it does to us. Now in the South, or even in the Midwest too, their focus is
going to be more on disaster relief because they get hit by hurricanes and tornadoes.

Generally, the same thing goes for Europe. However, in Europe, they have different laws and
Ortega 100
regulations so corporations have to abide within those [laws and regulations]. A good example is
the [data] privacy regulations that Europe just rolled out in 2018. All these corporations began
changing their privacy policies to fit this new regulation. Many of those companies are U.S.-
based, but because they want to in Europe, they have to follow the European rules. Also, people
in Europe have different concerns than the people in the U.S. as far as humanitarian and
environmental goals. It boils down to what the laws are and what the consumers are asking for.
Generally speaking, the principles are the same.
What does “doing good” mean to you?
Do no harm. To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of the phrase. We use it a lot in PR because it’s
very noncommittal. Corporations like it because they don’t have to say, “We’re going to build
500 houses for families.” Instead they can just say, “We’re going to do good.” Well, what does
that even mean? If I were to define doing good it would boil down to—do no harm. That phrase
is also pretty indefinite and noncommittal. Although, if you’re trying to decide between two
options you can do good while doing harm, but if you go with do no harm you’re not necessarily
“doing good” but you’re not causes pain or hurt.

Ortega 101
Industry Interviews

Jenna Greene—Founder, FORWARD COLELCTIVE

Interview questions and answers:
How do you define CRM and how do you see it differently than CSR?
For me, the term cause-related marketing is a little old fashioned. When I think CRM, I think of
a one-off, a campaign, something that’s not necessarily holistic as it could be in terms of a
company’s DNA and the social impact that they’re doing. However, CRM is now a more
understood word. I find myself having to use it because, as you were saying, companies do need
to be more proactive—some are and some aren’t. Some understand the value of the social impact
space and some still need education. CSR, CRM, and social impact are all buzzwords that are
very important. CSR, from what I’ve seen back in the day, is the more traditional type of grant
giving or employee engagement opportunities. When we talk CRM, that tends to be in a different
department. It’s marketing, it’s media, or it’s the PR side of the business. What’s confusing and
complicated about it is that every company operates a little differently. Every company houses
these initiatives in different places within a company. It’s hard to navigate sometimes. In
addition to CRM and CSR, now you have all this public policy. It’s becoming much larger than
it has in the past. WeWork, Lyft or Amazon—you look at their job opportunities now and see all
these public policy options. Public policy sometimes blends into the social impact.

Getting back to your original question—yes, there is a difference [between CRM and CSR]. I
tend to see CSR as a little bit more internal—usually for employees, it’s usually involving grant
making and local community engagement. Although, in other big companies CSR is housed as
their sustainability efforts—it just really all depends. CRM is more external-facing and [it’s
about] trying to engage people in different ways.
Have you noticed that more companies are coming to you [FORWARD COLLECTIVE] to
do more CRM over the past five years? If so, why do you think that is?
Yes, they have and I think it’s been for a few reasons. One—the consumers have been
demanding it, especially when you look at millennials or Gen Z who are going to be in the
workforce. It’s very important for the younger generations. They’ll ask about give back
initiatives in interviews. It’s almost like it has to start to be incorporated because of employee
recruitment/retention, consumer demand—they’re starting to pay attention to what brands are
supporting different issues. It’s not just about giving away money to consumers. It’s about what
companies are taking a stand with. Are they taking a stand on being more sustainable,
environmentally friendly or are they taking a stand on something like gender issues? It’s also not
the old school one-for-one model give back. Now that was ground breaking—what TOMs did
was shake up the market in a way that hadn’t been done before—but it’s evolving, changing and
getting stronger. So, you have to ask, “what’s next?”
What is the business case for CRM?
Ortega 102
It’s hard to answer that question because what I do is so unique to each company. Ultimately,
there’s always going to be an ROI in some capacity, it just depends on what you want that ROI
to be. Is it fundraising? Is it pure awareness? Is it reaching new audiences? Define what the value
is and then build the business case around it because you’re going to be able to do something
differently than what you’re traditionally able to with PR and marketing opportunities with a
layer of social impact. Add this [social impact] layer that’s going to be able to enhance [your
project] and be able to tap into new markets that you can’t without that social impact piece.
Have you had to deliver the business case for social impact to the organizations and
companies you work with? Or are they more concerned with the social impact?
It depends on the company. Not only does it depend on the company, but it depends on the
leadership of the company. For example, I’m working with an NBA team right now. They saw
value in what we were doing that wasn’t necessarily going to be financial dollars to them, but the
touch point in that they’re having in the community is so incredible. It’ll probably lead to a
financial return, but the first point was their desire to position themselves as leaders in the
community. In this corporate world, it can be tough to get companies to understand the financial
benefit of social impact. It just all depends on the company.
Do think there are any financial risks to CRM?
Anything in business has financial risk. What we do here at FWD is strategically think through
why we would be doing something. On any new campaign or product that someone launches, is
there financial risk? Yes! For us [at FWD] we try to apply the same strategy as any other
business, but ours just happens to have a social impact aspect to it.
What are the main challenges of CRM or the social impact space as a whole?
With big companies, these [social impact] types of conversations are being housed in different
departments. It just depends on where they’re being housed. Are they housed under policy? Are
they housed under marketing? Are they housed under employee engagement? These
conversations are sometimes happening in silos. What I want to see is more fluidity. We need
more fluidity to make sure that people are operating with this type of thinking both as individuals
and as companies as a whole—and not just a piece of it, but a part of the full company DNA.
Have you noticed any differences in the way that CRM is practiced or approached across
the U.S. or Europe?
Generally, in Europe they’re more assertive and edgy as opposed to hear in the U.S. It’s just
really hard to categorize things because it’s a space that just keeps changing. It also depends on
what industry the company is operating in. Are you a company like Amazon? Coca-Cola?
L’Oreal? Their priorities are going to be potentially different based on the consumers that they
sell to, the products they’re developing, or the type of employees they have in-house. All that has
an impact.
What does doing good mean to you?
Ortega 103
It’s a mindset. Utilize your passion to do good—whether that’s personal or where you are within
a job. It’s about making [doing good] a part of your mindset both in your individual life and your
work life.

Ortega 104
Industry Interviews

Laura Min Jackson—
Adjunct Professor at Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism,
University of Southern California

Interview questions and answers:
Do you find that people tend to confuse terms within the social impact space? Like CSR,
cause-related marketing, philanthropy or community relations?
Yes, and I think that the definition of CSR is vague, but it helpful in that it can be inclusive of a
lot of things. For a while a lot of it was about environment sustainability. If you’re looking at
triple bottom line—people, plants and profit—then that includes the human impact as well as the
global or environmental impact. Both of those things are involved.
Do you think that there is really a distinction between some of the terms? How would you
define CSR?
I think CSR is the broadest category. I think sometimes in cause-related marketing people are
finding a solution in order to solve a problem. You know, “let’s put pink ribbons on our labels
during the month of October.” Right, because it’s breast cancer awareness month and we want to
support that. CSR is a bigger strategic commitment. Cause-related marketing is a subset of it, but
CSR is not a subset of cause-related marketing. CSR is the overarching, “What is the good this
organization wants to do in the world? How do we apply our resources to do that?” And then,
you know, educational campaigns, or cause-related campaigns, or recycling, footprint
reduction—all the rest of that stuff becomes a part of it. But CSR is the bigger driving umbrella.
That’s just my view.
Have you over the years, because I know you’ve worked in this space for a while, seen
CSR’s value to society or the business industry change?
Yes. On a business perspective, what you’re seeing is—or what I’ve seen—is that investors are
demanding it. From a corporate perspective, investors are saying “Tell me. Document it for us.”
And they’ll actually send questionnaires to corporations and say “Tell us. What are your
commitments? What are your actual initiatives? Not just, ‘Oh we’re good people or good
corporate citizens.’ No, tell us.” Then you also have, because of millennial consumers.
Millennials are a driving force in consumer behavior. I think they are now the largest group of
consumers and they’re just, you know, aging into category. What’s happening is, they demand
meaning, authenticity and transparency and that means they are demanding evidence that the
companies that they’re buying from are actually demonstrating CSR practices—whether they
call it that or not. It’s definitely more of an issue today. Here’s an example, a little example, but I
think it’s relevant. In the cosmetics and beauty industry, there’s a lot of YouTube bloggers and
there are regular web bloggers who will talk different makeup lines or different companies and
all that. Lately, I’ve noticed a lot of them, when you’re reading product reviews, they’re really
talking about whether the products are cruelty free, whether they’re really vegan, and they’re
Ortega 105
especially complaining about excessive packaging. Right, too much cardboard, too much this
and that. “Why would you send a lipstick in giant a cardboard box?” You know, that kind of
thing. People never used to pay attention to stuff like that. Consumers never complained about
things like that. Now it’s become—even when someone will be on their, I’m just going to say a
YouTuber—um, someone saying “This is a beautiful lipstick” and in the comments, you’ll see
repeatedly, “Yes, but it’s not cruelty free. Yes, but this. Yes, but that.” This is really interesting
that it’s become such a force. If you’re going to market to millennials, and most of us are, then
you really need to think about how it’s going to fulfill those requirements because those are
demands the consumer is empowered to make and they’re very vocal about it.
Do you think that in the business industry they’re starting to value CSR more because they
see a financial return if they actually do engage in CSR initiatives?
There is a monetary value, but it doesn’t always translate dollar to dollar.
Why do you think these for-profit companies should even engage in CSR or incorporate it
into their business?
If you look at the workforce and you see millennials are coming into it as the baby boomers are
aging out, millennial employees in particular want to work at companies where they get meaning
from their work and the organization is doing good. If you do real CSR, you can use it as a way
of becoming an employer of choice. Everybody is going to want to attract the best employees
and the best employees are going to have the power to have expectations. It’s not just like you
have a job and you’re lucky to have it. It’s like, “I’m qualified for multiple jobs and companies
and I want to work for the best possible company.”
The other thing is, you know, because of this consumer empowerment that comes from social
media—consumers have the power now. If they don’t agree with what a company is doing or
they don’t think the company is doing enough, then they have opinions and they express them.
They can influence others. That’s the thing that’s happening. The social media model gives
consumers the power to influence each other—more than companies influence the consumers
anymore. What the result of that is—if you [corporations] are irritating or angering a lot of
consumers who are influencers you’re going to get in trouble. [Corporations] can’t just come
back by having a fancy marketing campaign. [Corporations] need to actually demonstrate
through actions that [they] mean to do good. I think that’s actually a part of it too. [Companies]
can’t just gloss over it anymore. [They] can’t stick a pink ribbon on a label and say, “Oh but
we’re doing good for women.” You know, it’s like—come on. There’s a funny example of that
actually. When companies essentially falsify their CSR, that’s called greenwashing. In particular,
when they capitalize on breast cancer activism and awareness by putting pink ribbons on stuff,
it’s called “pinkwashing”. There’s actually activist groups and watchdog groups that check out—
I think it’s called stopgreenwash.org. I always recommend that people look at that so that they
understand what not to do. Some of it is innocent like “Oh, I didn’t realize,” but some of it is
nefarious. So, on “pinkwashing”, there was a recent funny example where Kentucky Fried
Chicken was doing these pink buckets for their fried chicken. It’s like, if you eat a lot of fried
chicken that’s very fatty and that’s actually a high-risk contributor to cancer. That’s completely
contradictory and it’s so ridiculous. You know, BT talks about how the NFL, during October,
Ortega 106
they’ll wear pink shoe laces and to be like, “We’re pro-women, pro-breast cancer awareness”—
and then you have all these NFL players who are totally committing domestic violence. Right,
and that’s kind of an issue where consumers are not going to dismiss that. Those are problems
that they’re not finding—it’s not okay.
What do you think are the main challenges of CSR?
I think that if a company is serious about CSR the main challenge is discipline. Staying
disciplined because once you agree, “Oh, wow we should be doing something to improve the
world,” then everything becomes appealing. “Oh, well we should do literacy campaigns. We
should do pet adoptions. We should do food drives to feed the hungry. We should do clothing
drives to help the homeless.” What happens is that you end up having to determine what it is you
stand for. What is your purpose. It’s funny because I’m teaching an online class this semester
and literally had the CSR lecture last so it’s perfect timing for us to have this call. We talked
about what you do, the suggestion, or how I’ve helped companies in CSR work is to look at the
mission and purpose of the organization and use that to start defining the parameters of your
CSR work. Yes, there’s a million and one needs in the world, but you can’t solve all of them. So,
the challenge becomes how do you choose the ones that are meaningful and that are something
that you can make an impact and that align to your purpose. For me when I think of CSR and
synonyms, the one that comes to mind is strategic philanthropy. Even if you’re writing checks,
you don’t just write checks to every charity that asks until you run out of money. You have to
say no some of the time. You have to have criteria and you have to start to measure whether or
not that’s actually happening. That’s the first thing, the discipline—to decide what you will and
will not support.

The second thing becomes how do you define success? Some of these problems are not going to
solved in a one year campaign. If you do real world CSR are you’re talking about real,
potentially global scale, issues that haven’t been solved for years. Like here in Southern
California—homelessness in LA. My gosh. There’s like tens of thousands of homeless. ‘We’re
going to build a shelter’ Okay, or--‘We’re going to build one house for Habitat for Humanity.’
Okay—and maybe that’s enough and maybe it’s not. So, how you define…It’s this idea of
outputs and outcomes. Outputs are the units and outcomes are the measurable change. Every
organization that’s going to do CSR needs to define for themselves what those are going to be.
Have you found a common method that many companies have used to define CSR success?

There is a gold standard for CSR. It’s called GRI, the Global Reporting Initiative. It’s kind of the
global scorecard for many Fortune 500 companies because most of them are going to develop
their CSR programs around the UN Development Program. So, you have the UNDP and then
you have the GRI. The GRI is considered “gold standard.” CSR is always voluntary and even
compliance to the UNDP guidelines is voluntary. But, if you had to choose a standardization,
that [GRI] would be the one.
What are the positive impacts of CSR? What positive impact do you think CSR can have
on an organization?
Ortega 107
Yeah, well I think that CSR helps on many levels. One thing that it does is—it reminds
employees of the higher purpose. It makes employees feel good and it drives employee
engagement—I believe and I think there are studies that suggest that. It’s not that employees who
work at companies with good CSR are always satisfied or more engaged, but I do believe
employees tend to be more satisfied when they believe that their work and their company does
something of purpose. That’s increasingly important. So, I think that’s the first thing. I think that
shareholders feel good. If you do it in a strategic way then you don’t get the criticism of, “Wow,
you’re wasting a lot of money.” Shareholders are always going to challenge you on executive
compensation, but I’ve never heard of anyone saying, “You guys are doing too much CSR.” You
know? No one ever goes, “You’ve invested too much in improving the world.”

Yeah, so I think that that’s kind of a consideration. I think it does have a benefit to customers.
Customers, consumers, whoever they are—B2B, B2C—they want to partner with companies that
are doing good in the world, so I think that there’s benefit there as well. I think [CSR] works on
many levels. There’s not a lot of downside to CSR as long as it’s done right.
Do any negative impacts of CSR come to mind?
Well, you cannot hide behind CSR if your product quality is poor. Consumers want quality
before they want CSR. If you’re using [CSR] as a distraction technique that would not be good.
You have to deliver on the promise of your product, brand or whatever it is first. You can’t use
CSR as a shield to hide behind.

And another thing on your earlier question about challenges to corporations, the best CSR, in my
opinion, is very tied to the mission and the values of the organization. It’s not just “We support
the Girl Scouts because we’ve always supported the Girl Scouts.” Right? It has to be “We
support the Girl Scouts because our company believes in empowering women.” That would
make sense for a lot of brands for example. Your action and your criteria [as a company] should
all tie to the mission and values. The values of an organization should support the mission of the
organization. The mission and the values together should essentially define the parameters of
your CSR work.
If you have any, what are some of the general principles that you believe that a company
should follow when they’re implementing CSR initiatives.
From a principle’s perspective, you want solutions that are practical, relevant and creative.
Another would be response to a pressing societal need and visions a clear way of addressing it.
Marshalls the necessary resources. Embodies clear and relevant outcomes.
Where do you think ethics comes in to play in CSR? A lot of the time people have this
perception of PR professionals and how they have this reputation of overpromising and
under delivering. How do you think we can avoid that when it comes to CSR work?
I think it comes from showing the meaningful outcomes from the work. PR people do have a
responsibility as the ones who are shepherding the reputation of the organization—they may not
have developed it but they have to shepherd it and protect it. They have to continually challenge
Ortega 108
themselves on “Are we doing the right thing here?” It’s like self-enforced—except for the IRS.
Now that’s a legal tax code. Aside from that though, I think PR professionals have to continually
be willing to question for themselves, have the standards and be the ones to say, “We don’t think
it’s right” or “Sorry CEO, we don’t believe being the premium sponsor at the Girls Scouts
banquet makes sense.”
What does “doing good” mean to you?
Doing good to me means…There are so many ways to take that. Doing good means contributing
what I can to make the world a better place so that when I leave this world it’s slightly improved
from when I [first] came. That would be the ultimate to me. Professionally I do good in my
career in two ways; First, I run my own consultancy and I take on non-profits and do pro-bono
work. There are some non-profits that I do discounts for or just do the work for free. However,
I’m selective in the charities I pick and the causes we support. There’s also teaching. One of the
things I did personally was step back from my career and basically took an early retirement
because I wanted to teach. My intention in teaching is to try to inspire the next generation to
make the world a better place. I really believe in PR and I really believe we can elevate this
profession. There’s meaningful work that can be done. There may be one or two cases or people
that you see a direct effect, but I’ll take that. What’s really cool to me is when I teach a class in,
for example in CSR, and people go “Oh my god, I just found the thing I want to do in my life.”
That’s it. Here’s another thing—sometimes years after people leave USC, they will send me an
email and say, “I thought about you and this thing you said in a class and I used it today.” That
is why I do this. I don’t have to count the number of times I get that, but I do feel like “Alright,
this is worth it.” I always wanted to teach so I’ve never questioned doing it, but just getting that
occasional story like this is nice to hear. We touch lives—that’s what doing good is.

Ortega 109
Industry Interviews

Matthew Leveque—
Associate Professor at Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism,
University of Southern California
Interview questions and answers
Do you think advertising can be used to create positive social change?
Advertising can be a component of raising awareness [of social causes] or getting people to think
about it, and if done correctly it can get people to feel about it. If you’re doing something and
nobody knows about it, how is anyone going to know the consequences of it?

I’ll give you an example. I live in the South Bay and there’s a Chevron Refinery in El Segundo. I
have no idea what they do, but I see in the local weekly newspaper that I actually read because
they give you the local news—what’s going on in Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and these
smaller towns because the LA times doesn’t really write about it. I see [Chevron’s] full page ads
and how they’re supporting the education system in the South Bay, what they’re doing with their
surf camps for underprivileged kids, and how they’re giving tours of their facilities and things
like that. I would have no awareness of any of that if it weren’t for that old school paid
advertising that they were doing in that local weekly newspaper.

That would raise awareness, but you can also be somebody who is attempting to assist with a
policy change, a social norm change, or getting people to think about things and maybe then
they’re touching on things about the particular issue that they’re interested in. [The company]
may not be talking about themselves, but they may be talking about that issue. A good example
would be Apple’s [RED] day. They’re not really saying, “Here’s what we do.” They’re saying,
“This is what we’re trying to fix” or “this is what we’re trying to solve.”
Should advertising be used by companies to promote their CSR work? Or does it come off
as bragging if they use it?
It’s very situational. If it’s just boasting for boasting sake, it’ll come across as problematic. Back
to the Chevron example, it’s not boasting. It’s just talking about the facts and what they’ve done
in these small newspaper ads. There’s a balance between bragging about something—which will
turn people off—versus if nobody knows about it how are you going to be doing on it? There are
other ways though. You have to define what you’re trying to do with your CSR. Is it to let the
consumer know that you’re a do-good company because consumers are attracted to that? Or are
you doing it because it’s part of your public affairs or public policy strategy because maybe
you’re a defense contractor or maybe you’re a company that gets a lot of government business?
That may lead you to advertise in appropriate publication whether that’s Politico or Washington
Post. So, that’s not really bragging, it’s letting key constituencies know and re-reminding them
what you’re doing. It’s probably complementary to what other communications strategies.
Ortega 110
Do you think that video or TV advertising is more influential than other types of
advertising (e.g. print) when you’re trying to raise awareness for causes?
Clearly, words can be emotional, but there’s something about the image, the audio, and the
music that goes with it that makes video far more compelling and touching. This has nothing to
do with the topic, but last night when I saw the picture of George W. Bush’s service dog laying
down in front of the casket—I can describe that to you and it means one thing, but when you see
that picture for yourself your heart is just ripped. There’s also the picture superiority effect—the
idea that people are more likely to recalling something when they’re seeing things moving and
there’s audio with it.
Since video is becoming more popular, do you think that companies should be using it
more often as they attempt to create social change?
Again, it depends on what the social change is and the emotional storytelling. We are a mobile
internet connected world now. People, especially Millennials and younger adults, are really used
to consuming their content through things like Instagram stories and YouTube videos. The
advantage also of video content like branded YouTube videos is the fact that it can be evergreen
content. The brochure, flyer, or speech that you’re giving is one thing—and is critically
important—but if you search for a company and see videos that illustrate how involved they are
in the community that’s going to make a big difference.
What do you consider to be the biggest pitfall of advertising?
Well it could be fake. There could be a lack of transparency. Advertising can control or force a
message into something it’s not. Companies have to be real, transparent, and honest. Nothing is
the greatest gift to mankind. Sometimes it’s those small things and small changes that when you
look at them in the cume of what you’re doing in CSR or as a company or brand, they can make
an impact on the brand perception that people can have.
Do you think it should be up to consumers, or the people viewing ads, to do their own
research to determine whether a company is doing what they’re saying they are? Or do you
think there should be more regulation on what companies can and can’t do?
I would tell everybody to be skeptical of anything that’s coming from [companies] on behalf of
themselves. While their interests may be good in terms of CSR and trying to help solve the
world’s problems, that’s fundamentally not their goal of existing. Their goal of existing is
usually something else unless it’s a non-profit.
How do you suggest companies avoid cause-washing?
Coming across as a hypocrite is always a problem. When you think about it, all the
communications that these companies are engaged in have consequences. Everything is available
online now. Someone will find out and post something. It’s about the due diligence and caution
and having a really smart communications staff who thinks in a 360 degree about how it’ll
Ortega 111
impact employees, vendors, and customers. You have to use audience mapping in the 360
degrees around you and then determine if it’s a good initiative for the company.
Do you think some of the companies who’ve had cause-washing issues (e.g. Audi) would’ve
experienced the same blowback if their ads would’ve been print instead of video?
Well I think people may be seeing the video more and it may be easier to consume. Also, it may
be more consequential because the storytelling is more intense on a video than it is in a written
piece. There’s more room to get unhappy.
What does doing good mean to you?
It means not always thinking about yourself. It means trying to do things that are going to be
beneficial and impact those around you—either those that you love and love you or even those
that you don’t know. Doing good is looking at people less fortunate. Looking at parts of society
that are disproportionately impacted and trying to do things that right those wrongs or make it
better.

In business, there’s nothing wrong with being selfish. They’re in existence to make themselves
money, but you have to ask yourself—is your CSR always based on your business goals? If you
can do that and people think its transparent and good that’s fine—but maybe there’s
opportunities to do things that don’t have an impact on your bottom line and you do them
because they’re just the right thing to do.

Ortega 112
Industry Interviews

Kelly Wilson—Director, CSR at Warner Bros. Entertainment

Interview questions and answers:
Have you noticed this confusion or do you think there’s a clear distinction between the
terms?
It’s a great question. Having been in this industry for about seven years now, people and people
within the industry use these terms interchangeably and even differently. It varies company to
company. It varies definitely between non-profit to for-profit sector. As CSR professionals, we
probably should all get on the same page of what we want to call these things. We haven’t yet
done that.

For example, here at Warner Bros. we used to call ourselves Corporate Citizenship, but now
we’re called Corporate Responsibility which is different from Community Engagement here. It
really does just vary company by company.

Getting into your question of if there could be a distinction. I do think corporate responsibility
could mean something specific or it could be an umbrella term. Whereas, for me, cause-
marketing, corporate philanthropy, and community relations all have really specific meaning.
But again, what feels clear to me might be different at another organization.
How would you define corporate social responsibility? Either personally or how you see
that Warner Bros. defines it.
At the broadest level, it’s the alignment of your company with causes that share the same values.
For Warner Bros. I’ll extend the definition a little bit further—It’s aligning our company and our
characters with causes that share the same values. What aligns with us as Warner Bros. the
entertainment studio is a little bit different than for example, Tarzan the film. You can see how
the causes there might be different but it still is about the alignment of a company with social
causes that share the values.
How would you define Cause-related Marketing? [CSR] and CRM are really the two terms
that I keep seeing used interchangeably. Do you see a difference between the two?
Definitely—at least here at Warner Bros. Cause-related marketing to me is taking a character of
ours and aligning that with a cause that shares the same values. So, for example, we launched a
campaign called [DOO] Good and it’s about Scooby Doo. Essentially, it’s about encouraging
kids to meddle to do good in their community. It’s really about community service and getting
engaged in your community. To me that is cause-marketing because we’re taking a for-profit, for
us it’s content, but you can also look at it as a product and aligning that with a cause. Where I see
that differing from some of the other work that I do is I don’t program around issues that align
with us as a company. Access and inclusion in the entertainment industry or inspiring young
Ortega 113
people to be storytellers—those don’t really align with a product per say but just rather corporate
values and the values of us as a business. That’s where I see the distinction.
Some companies that are more consumer-facing also may consider cause marketing to be taking
a marketing initiative that they have and aligning it with a cause. Here [at Warner Bros.] it’s
about taking a product, for us it’s characters or content, and aligning that with a cause. I’ve also
heard at non-profits that they see CRM as any kind of in-store signage or point-of-sale donation
gathering. For example, if you were to see a Make-A-Wish sign at the check-out of Target, [non-
profits] might consider that cause-related marketing. For us that may be one piece of a cause-
marketing campaign, but we see it much more broadly.
What would say are the positive impacts CSR can have on an organization.
Other than the obvious positive impacts for the community that CSR programs are serving, if
we’re talking about business impacts, of course there’s increased consumer engagement and
positive brand sentiment. Additionally, for us [Warner Bros.] there’s this big element of license
to operate—very physically in the location of where your company is. It’s about taking care of
that community where you work. For us [WB], because we film in a lot of communities, that
community affairs strategy becomes really important and crucial to our success. Then of course
there’s the HR side. In order to be a competitive employer, potential employees want to work for
a company who has these kinds of [CSR] initiatives. That never needs to be reinforced to us [at
WB]—this is our day in and day out. What we’ve taken from that growing demand is the need to
communicate what we’re doing more publicly.
Do you think advertising can be used as a positive tool to help other communities
understand what companies are doing in CSR?
Specifically, for Warner Bros. we have always been a behind the scenes company. We make 60-
80 TV shows every year and you probably don’t know what those are because we sell to every
network. Because we’re a content creator we want to be able to make content on any subject and
so we have to be mindful of how we align—even in the social impact space. That said, we’ve
been around for over 90 years and have always been a behind the scenes company. We did a
brand study recently which was really positive. People felt like Warner Bros. was a company that
was engaging in the social impact space and doing good work for the community, but they just
didn’t know what we were doing. Something we wanted to be mindful of is the fact that if you
don’t say anything, you risk people thinking you’re not doing anything at all. We had to get out
of our comfort zone and start communicating what we are doing as a company in this space. For
companies that have more of a direct-to-consumer model, somebody that has a product on a
shelf, advertising becomes an incredibly powerful tool to get that message out.
You have to do it right and authenticity becomes really important. We saw this with Super Bowl
over the past few years. There were a lot of companies that had prosocial advertisements, which
is incredible, but you run the risk as a company [of coming off as unauthentic]. If you’re making
an advertisement off of a one-time donation or highlighting a powerful story that isn’t authentic.
But if you’re making an advertisement on a program or partnership you have that is long-term—
that’s a good use of marketing spend.
Ortega 114
Besides coming off as unauthentic, what are the other main challenges people in the CSR
industry are facing?
Finding authentic alignment is a huge challenge. Finding the right non-profit partner(s) is a big
challenge. It takes a lot of time. Finding organizations that are national leaders in their space and
are equipped to handling a major partnership. That’s not to say that there aren’t a lot of people
doing great work, but [partnerships] really do become a big issue. The key to success is making
sure you have the right partners. There’s also of course measurement. That’s just the nut that no
one has cracked. I’m hoping that someone smart and educated working in this space will do it for
us. There are a lot of ways to look at it and everybody is measuring in different ways and they’re
doing the best they can there. Measuring anecdotes becomes very hard when you sit within
companies that are used to measuring the bottom line. How do you translate sentiment and
engagement into value at a corporate level? It just becomes very difficult.
How does Warner Bros. measure the success of a CSR initiative?
Well our overall CSR strategy is what we call WB Good. We have three business imperatives
and three pro-social imperatives. Any initiative we design we make sure that it’s hitting at least
three-four of those. We do this to make sure we’re not just building something that just sounds
great and has business value, but doesn’t have the right impact or has a lot of impact but isn’t
relevant to the business. In terms of success, it’s a lot easier to measure for our environmental
initiatives because KPIs are already set. For our social impact initiatives, which is what I
oversee, is a little bit tougher. A lot of it looks like output instead of outcomes. Impact is more
measured in anecdotes. Each initiative of ours has different goals that we set up front with our
partners so that we can measure against them. Sometimes we have goals like “Increase
confidence and empathy within students” and that’s a little different to measure than say
kilowatts per hour used on set.
What’s been incredible to see is that even though they’re anecdotes, we get such positive
feedback and anecdotes from these programs. They’ll come up in conversations outside of the
company with senior-level executives. Someone will come up to them and say the impact that it
had or that they saw that we were doing this—particularly in the access and inclusion space. By
setting up goals at the top and making sure they align with your overall strategy, all of the
outcomes, if you’re doing it well, are going to come back to something positive for the company.
Those anecdotes that we’re seeing in entertainment are becoming more and more important
around what kind of company people feel we are and know we are.
Do you feel like you have to convey the importance of your department to the overall
company?
We have an incredible leadership team who’s all in on this and it’s really ingrained in their
approach to business. It makes my job a lot easier. What I will say though it that I speak CSR
and they speak business and so when ideas are on paper I don’t think senior leadership will fully
understand the value it will ultimately have, but they understand that it’s valuable. But then when
these programs are put into action and they’re hearing feedback about them and we’re getting
press about them and they’re seeing all the lives impacted—it becomes clearer. Fortunately, at
Ortega 115
Warner Bros. the importance of CSR in innate to our leadership. I don’t have to fight a battle to
get a program approved.
What would you say are some of the general principles that you believe a company should
follow when implementing these CSR initiatives?
The first thing would be aligning with your core competencies and values. Otherwise, there isn’t
a way to build a deeper partnership and it becomes more like check book philanthropy. That’s
not to say that writing checks to organizations that don’t necessarily fit into, say the
entertainment industry, is ill spent. There’s just a more strategic way to focus your funding. That
alignment is key. A one dollar investment should equal so much more than one dollar of impact.
For example, to make our initiatives more than check book philanthropy we have to ask
ourselves “What else is WB bringing to the table? Can we bring networking? Can we bring the
studio? What can WB bring to the table that’s more than just that one dollar? Additionally, a
clear and understandable mission that’s concise. CSR comes innately to those in the industry, but
you don’t want to explain to your consumer too much why you’re aligning with something.
The last thing is finding partners who are really strong in their industry. So, we just launched
three or four programs this year and a few of them are partnering with LAUSD. One of the
programs is called Story Lab. In this program, we really wanted to make sure kids, at a very
young age, knew that their voice mattered. We felt that confidence, empathy and creativity are
the core essential pieces to storytelling. This is part of our larger initiative of how do we make
sure that people are willing to hear the stories of others and feel like their stories are important to
encourage more people from different backgrounds to become storytellers. [WB] has these
incredible characters and philosophies around storytelling, LAUSD has the students, and then we
brought in this incredible partner Young Storytellers. Their bread and butter is empowering
students through curriculum to write their own stories. We partnered with them to make the
curriculum suitable for the classroom.
An important piece in the process is knowing what you’re good at and knowing when you need a
partner. It’s about understanding what your gaps may be and then bringing in partners that can
fill those gaps. It becomes very important to success.
Where do you see CSR going within the next 10 years?
Some trends that I see happening are (1) I think that we’ll start seeing more multi-partner
partnerships. Traditionally CSR is like company plus “X” non-profit partner, but I think we’ll be
seeing more multi-partnership collaborations. It may multiple non-profit partners or maybe
government, non-profit, and corporate, or maybe multiple corporations and one non-profit. I
think more people will be coming to the table together to create those partnerships. (2) I think
that as new businesses are developed CSR will be developed as they’re launched instead of after.
They won’t have to do this transition from check book philanthropy into strategic social impact. I
don’t know what effect that will have, but I imagine it will be positive in terms of the impact that
CSR will have from these corporations as the organization is built and not after.
What does “doing good” mean to you?
Ortega 116
Doing good for me means understanding the audiences and communities you affect as a business
and making sure to be taking care of those communities. That’s really broad but I think in a
larger sense its making sure to understand the impact that you have on the world as the business
that you are and acknowledging the effect of that impact and being a good community partner
with those that are effected. By impact and effect, I don’t mean in negative ways, I just mean, for
example, in entertainment we acknowledge the power that representation on screen has. We
acknowledge and need to be conscious of making sure there’s representation in our industry.
Overall, I think it’s about understanding the effects your business has in the world and being
intentional about being a positive player.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An inconvenient truth about the public relations industry and greenwashing

PDF

The implementation of corporate social responsibility initiatives as a strategy for post-crisis rebuilding and renewal

PDF

Being a good sport: effectively implementing corporate social responsibility in North American professional sports

PDF

The CSR paradox: how communicating about good can turn out bad

PDF

The grass is already greener: how insights have given non-profit leverage over their for-profit counterparts in digital communication strategies

PDF

A call for a new code of responsibility: the value of establishing a CSR reporting standard

PDF

The Digital Revolution and its impact on the beauty industry

PDF

Glossier Chinese regional campaign plan

PDF

Social innovation: Crowdsourcing and the new face of corporate social responsibility

PDF

The role of international PR firms in the use of CSR to achieve harmonious society in mainland China and Hong Kong

PDF

Corporate social responsibility strategies, standards and consumer awareness in the jewelry industry: what does it mean to be socially responsible in the jewelry industry? A specific look into pr...

PDF

Generation Z: social media, influencers and brand loyalty in entertainment

PDF

Voter engagement in the 2020 presidential election: what we can learn from the voter engagement initiatives in California-based and national nonpartisan organizations to increase voter participation

PDF

Volkswagen Dieselgate: an analysis of Volkswagen AG's crisis communication as a response to the emissions scandal from 2015

PDF

The luxury appeal: analyzing affordable luxury brands through the Great Recession

PDF

Evolution of visual public relations: the essentials of branded video

PDF

Why we follow influencers: the role of Asian female fashionistas in Los Angeles

PDF

Exploring what has led to the racial leadership gap within the nonprofit sector

PDF

“Ocean fandom”: what the music industry should learn from Frank Ocean to keep the phenomenon and cultural experience called fandom alive

PDF

The impact of social media on the diabetes industry

Asset Metadata

Creator Ortega, Irina (author)

Core Title Not being bad is not good enough: why companies need to be proactively doing good through CSR initiatives

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 04/25/2021

Defense Date 04/01/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Business,cause-related marketing,corporate communications,corporate social responsibility,CRM,CSR,OAI-PMH Harvest,philanthropy

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Floto, Jennifer (committee chair), Kim, Eunjin (committee member), Kim, Su Jung (committee member)

Creator Email iortega@usc.edu,riniortega@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-150101

Unique identifier UC11660536

Identifier etd-OrtegaIrin-7311.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-150101 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-OrtegaIrin-7311.pdf

Dmrecord 150101

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ortega, Irina

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