SOCIAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT: A DEFINITION

SOCIAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT:

A DEFINITION

Mary C. Gentile, Ph.D.

Fall 2002

The Aspen Institute

Business and Society Program

Discussion Paper Series

Discussion Paper II

_

271 Madison Avenue, Suite 606

New York, NY 10016

(212) 895-8000





Please do not quote without reference.

Our Mission

To increase the supply of business leaders who understand¡ªand seek to balance¡ªthe complex relationship

between business success and social and environmental progress.

Our Vision

Businesses committed to addressing complex global problems¡ªled by executives who possess the skills,

values and long-term view required to consider the social impact of business decisions and who employ

social innovation as a key element of business strategy.

Aspen BSP?271 Madison Avenue, Suite 606?NY, NY 10016?(212) 895-8000 t?(212) 895-8012 f

Author

Mary C. Gentile is an independent consultant in Arlington, MA. Previously Gentile was faculty

member, researcher, and administrator at the Harvard Business School and Senior Manager in

Responsible Business Practices at Arthur Andersen LLP.

Gentile currently does executive coaching, writing and strategy design around issues of diversity and

social impact management. Clients have included: The Aspen Institute, Harvard¡¯s Kennedy School

of Government, Fine Line Consulting, International Women's Forum, Pfizer Corporation, Morgan

Stanley, and Harvard Divinity School.

Gentile¡¯s publications include Can Ethics Be Taught? Perspectives, Challenges, and Approaches at Harvard

Business School (with Thomas R. Piper and Sharon Parks, HBS Press, 1993), Differences That Work:

Organizational Excellence through Diversity (HBR, 1994); Managerial Excellence Through Diversity: Text

and Cases (Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1995; Waveland Press, 1998), and numerous best-selling case

studies and articles. Gentile was Content Expert for the award-winning CD-ROM, Managing Across

Differences (HBSP, 1996).

Acknowledgements

The Business and Society Program and Mary Gentile would like to thank Maureen Scully of the

Simmons Graduate School of Management for her helpful input to this paper.

Introduction

The Aspen Institute¡¯s Business and Society Program (Aspen BSP)1, as part of its Beyond Grey Pinstripes

partnership with the World Resources Institute, prepared this discussion paper on social impact

management. Beyond Grey Pinstripes is a biennial survey of business schools around the world

that collects information about what MBA programs are doing to prepare their graduates for social and

environmental stewardship.2 This paper grew out of the thorny methodological challenge faced by the

reviewers of Beyond Grey Pinstripes, as they determined how to value and weigh the reported activities of

different schools. The paper begins to define the research and curricular domain that exists at the

intersection of business practice and wider societal concerns. Our goal is to articulate a language and

framework that will aid in the identification of topics within this domain and that will facilitate their

integration into broader business curriculum. This in turn will allow better assessment of current

attention to these topics¡ªby the Beyond Grey Pinstripes survey and others¡ªand encourage future relevant

research and teaching.

Supply and Demand

Reporting on the findings of the 1999 Beyond Grey Pinstripes report, Roger Cowe remarks on the ¡°scant¡±

attention paid by leading U.S. business schools to issues of social and environmental stewardship.3 He

explains that, as a recent group of international business educators gathered in the Windsor Castle

precincts concluded: ¡°The trouble is...there is a good old-fashioned economic problem at the root of the

limited supply...There is still virtually no demand for such courses from companies or business

students.¡±

So the question arises: if informed and skillful management of social and environmental questions is as

critical to the sustainability of businesses, communities, societies and the planet as many researchers,

political figures, and even business leaders claim, why is this material not becoming ¡°demand-driven¡± in

business schools? And we would reply that it is because of the way these issues have been framed. To

become motivated to solve a particular problem, individuals must not only believe there is a problem,

but they must also experience it as their problem, and believe that they have the means and opportunity to

solve it¡ªwhich leads us directly to the manner in which these issues have been approached in the past.

Past and Present Attempts to Frame the Field

There is a long history of attention to the intersecting roles and impacts of business and of the wider

society of which business is a part. This history exists both in the literature of business academics, as well

as in the literature and practice of businesses and NGOs. The terminology used to describe this area of

exploration includes among others: business ethics, corporate social responsibility, corporate social

performance, business and society, business in society, corporate sustainability, and increasingly in some

non-academic quarters, the triple bottom line. In fact, there are extensive literature reviews and

1

Formerly The Aspen Institute¡¯s Initiative for Social Innovation through Business (Aspen ISIB)

For more information about Beyond Grey Pinstripes, please visit , or contact

Aspen BSP

3

Cowe, Roger. ¡°Black Hole in MBA Curriculum.¡± The Guardian 19 February 2000: 34+

2

1

commentary, devoted specifically to naming and framing this field of research and discourse.4

This paper is distinguished from previous attempts to name and frame the field because it is written

from an external, pragmatic and integrative perspective. Our perspective is external because we are not

writing as faculty and researchers within a particular academic specialty who are communicating with

each other and working to legitimize their work as a distinct discipline. Rather we are writing as an

outside audience, hoping to identify and learn from the understanding that exists, wherever it exists,

and to encourage further knowledge generation to fill gaps and expand understanding¡ªwithout an

investment in a particular discipline. Understand that we do see the value and critical importance of

the work being done by faculty within the fields of business ethics, corporate social performance, or

business in society. We are simply engaged in a different enterprise that draws upon and benefits greatly

from their efforts.

Our perspective is pragmatic because we are trying to find a language that can communicate to MBA

students and business practitioners, as well as faculty, and to develop a working definition that will

facilitate our efforts to talk about and assess the current state of research, curriculum development and

teaching in this area.

Our perspective is integrative because rather than exploring and encouraging, primarily or exclusively, a

distinct and separate field of research¡ªfor example, corporate social performance or business ethics, as

critical as these endeavors are¡ªwe hope to explore and encourage research and teaching about the

management of social impacts throughout the traditional business disciplines.

We believe that an external, pragmatic and integrative approach allows us to frame the field from the

perspectives of current and future business practitioners and even skeptics, as opposed to the perspective

of academics or advocates exclusively. The topics then become their topics, framed as ¡°felt needs¡± and

addressed using the tools of management with which they feel some familiarity and facility. And rather

than a normative approach to the research and teaching (or a stance of ¡°advocacy,¡± as articulated by

James Walsh and Joshua Margolis5), the stance is one of open and critical inquiry into assumptions,

methods, and outcomes.

Towards a Definition of Social Impact Management

Aspen BSP¡¯s naming and defining of ¡°social impact management¡± emerged in 1999 during that year¡¯s

Beyond Grey Pinstripes project, as reviewers judged if a course syllabus, research article, or degree program

curriculum addressed social impact management.

4

For example, see ¡°Social Issues in Management: Theory and Research in Corporate Social Performance¡±

(Donna Wood. Journal of Management 17 (1991): 338-406) and ¡°Corporate Social Performance Revisited

(Donna Wood. Academy of Management Review 16 (1991): 691-718), as well as the numerous articles Wood

cites in these review essays.

5

Margolis, Joshua, and James Walsh. People and Profits? The Search for a Link Between a Company¡¯s Social

and Financial Performance. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001. Also Margolis and

Walsh. ¡°Misery Loves Companies: Whither Social Initiatives by Business?¡± Harvard Business School Working

Paper. Social Enterprise Series, No. 19. Both projects were completed with the support of Aspen BSP.

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download