Friday, March 24, 2017

25 Years of World Water Day – Continuing the Mission to Provide Clean Drinking Water

March 22, 2017, marked the 25th anniversary of World Water Day, an annual date to encourage action to tackle the global water crisis. Access to safe drinking water is essential to overcoming extreme poverty across the world by 2030. Safe drinking water and proper sanitation not only greatly reduces infant mortality and water-borne diseases, but it is also an enabler for socioeconomic development and global gender equality.

P&G is committed to playing its part to help achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by providing clean drinking water to those who need it most and increasing safe sanitation and hygiene behaviours. The company has committed to delivering 15 billion litres of clean drinking water by 2020 through the P&G Children’s Safe Drinking Water Program (CSDW), its signature initiative to address the critical need for clean drinking water around the world. For the past 12 years, it has worked with more than 150 partners to provide P&G Purifier of Water packets for emergency relief, in the event of natural disasters, and in hard-to-reach rural areas where people don’t have access to clean drinking water. Invented by P&G scientists, each 4 gram packet treats 10 litres of water by effectively killing bacteria and viruses and removing parasites and solid materials.

To celebrate World Water Day 2017, P&G partnered with Upworthy to highlight the power of clean water in two videos that show how the CSDW Program is helping empower women around the world.

In the first video, Bechibila is featured; she is committed to educating her community about the critical importance of clean water. In the second film, three more women entrepreneurs are leading businesswomen in their communities now that they have access to clean water.

In Latin America, P&G has partnered with Fox/National Geographic to produce a 60-minute documentary segment to raise awareness about the water crisis in the region and the CSDW efforts in Argentina, Brazil, Panama and Costa Rica. The program will be televised in more than 10 countries from now until May 2017. To see the English subtitled trailer spot, click here.

—Allison Tummon Kamphuis, P&G CSDW program leader

Monday, March 20, 2017

The Artificial Intelligence Revolution is Now

Humankind has engaged technology to do more with less labor for as long as we have lived. In fact, somewhere between 2.5 and 3.4 million years ago, the common ancestors of humans and primates began to make and use crude tools. It took at least another million years before our early ancestors first learned to control fire; widespread use of fire for cooking is relatively recent, somewhere between 50 to 100,000 years ago.

It was about 12,000 years ago that hunter-gathers began to use cultivated agriculture for food. Somewhere around 30,000 years later, in the 9th century, gunpowder and early machinery marked a new technological era. A thousand years later, in the late 18th and early 19th century, the industrial revolution vastly accelerated our use of technology for production of goods. Mechanical calculators became commercially viable in the mid-1800’s, early analog computers came about 100 years later.

I remember first using a time-share computer terminal in my high school in 1968. Personal computers became commercially viable in the early-mid 1980’s, with the World Wide Web coming into its glory in the following decades. The new millennium, beginning only 17 years ago, was marked by widespread adoption of the smart phone, which seemed like a tremendous upgrade from the old PDAs. We bragged that our phones now had more computing capacity than the computers that guided moonshots. Computer networks and new and cheaper storage and processing exploded computer capacities. Now, we are now at the cusp of a new revolution based on quantum computing.

Throughout this several million year history, each technological revolution was met with both excitement and dread. Each time, the social, economic, and environmental impacts were profound. Disruptions were real. Family life changed. Work changed. Community changed. Political structures changed. Wars grew in scope and devastation. People migrated. There were winners and losers. And yet, somehow, the species adapted. It took time to adjust, but we survived and thrived.

Today’s artificial intelligence revolution isn’t leaving us much adjustment time. In 1984, Shoshana Zuboff, a Harvard Business School Professor, wrote In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. She described how the new machines may be used to empower—she called that “informate”—or to control, demean, and impoverish. Her book echoed the challenges faced in all our prior technological revolutions and foreshadowed the artificial intelligence debate today: Will technology create opportunities that we cannot even imagine and free us to pursue more lofty ambitions or take away our jobs and livelihood, our privacy, and our very dignity?

We have already experienced significant manufacturing job losses due to automation. A Ball State University study attributes 85 percent of U.S. manufacturing job losses to robotics and other productivity improvements, and only 13 percent due to trade.

The impacts are now moving to technical, analytical, and even managerial roles. According to a study done at Oxford University, over the next 10 to 20 years, 47 percent of all U.S. jobs are vulnerable to automation. Consider this observation by software developer Martin Ford, who was quoted in a December New Yorker review of his recent book: “A computer doesn’t need to replicate the entire spectrum of your intellectual capability in order to displace you from your job; it only needs to do the specific things you are paid to do.”

James Manyika, a senior partner at McKinsey and Company, agrees that almost half of the activities we pay people about $16 trillion in wages to do in the global economy have the potential to be automated using currently demonstrated technology. He believes that the most automatable activities involve data collection and manipulation as well as physical work in predictable environments including manufacturing, food services, transportation, warehousing, and retail. These sectors make up 51 percent of U.S. employment activities and $2.7 trillion in U.S. wages. And he adds that about 25 percent of what CEOs do, such as analyzing reports and data, could be replaced.

Manyika believes that in the short to medium term, more jobs will be changed than those fully automated away. And several other experts observe that even the eliminated jobs may be balanced by those created in enterprises yet to be determined. Consider, for example, that Google didn’t exist 20 years ago, and now its parent company Alphabet has a market cap of over $575 billion.

Elizabeth Kolbert comments in her New Yorker book review: “Picture the entire industrial revolution compressed into the life span of a beagle.” Is this a good thing? More specifically, to paraphrase Zuboff, will the AI revolution “infomate” or denigrate? That question will be the topic of the next blog in this series.

—Barton Alexander, Principal, Alexander & Associates LLC

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

S&P 500 Index Company Boards Need More Oversight of Sustainability Strategies and Execution, plus Disclosures

Results of research and analysis joint project by Ceres and Governance & Accountability Institute reveals: A closer look at the sustainability disclosure of S&P500(r) companies re-affirms the continuing need for greater oversight of sustainability efforts and disclosure of same by the boards of directors of the 500 companies.

Now that the clear majority of S&P 500 companies are publishing "sustainability" or "citizenship,"  "ESG" reports, the vast majority of companies still do not disclose more than the bare minimum on the role that their boards play on sustainability. (Research shows that while only 20 percent of the S&P 500 were publishing such reports in 2011, that number zoomed to 81 percent as of 2015.)

Despite the dramatic growth in corporate disclosure and reporting, the joint research project showed that the majority of companies do not (yet) provide enough insightful information for stakeholders—such as how environmental and social issues ("E" and "S") actually get on the board agenda, how strategy is set, how those decisions are made, and most important, how the senior managers rank and file then follow through on those decisions. What are the outcomes?

Given that boards of directors can play a critical role in driving the long-term performance of the companies which they oversee by carefully assessing both risks and opportunities related to their financial performance and overall strategic direction, disclosure about the role of the board is critical to helping investors and other stakeholders make thoughtful decisions on how well a company is organized and prepared for its long-term performance and viability.

About the S&P 500 Universe of Companies 

Each year since 2011, the G&A Institute team has examined all of the sustainability reports of those S&P 500 companies that are disclosing information about their sustainability performance. In this collaborative study with CERES, G&A further examined a select sub-group of companies using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI’s) G4 Sustainability Reporting Standard that was published in the 2015 calendar year[1].

The Ceres - G&A Institute Analysis

G&A Institute worked with Ceres, a nonprofit sustainability advocacy organization, in conducting a deeper dive in the data and corporate narrative to determine the extent to which this important universe of U.S. companies were disclosing the role that their boards play in driving corporate sustainability performance.

This analysis could not have been more timely: Institutional and individual investors increasingly want to know more about what actions corporate boards are taking on material environmental and social issues ("E" and "S") that do or could pose risks and ultimately impact the performance of the companies that they invest in.

Shareholders now have more influence in board composition, and are becoming increasingly vocal in expressing concerns about the board members' sustainability expertise and experience, which shareowners deem to be necessary board qualifications today. Investors are increasingly focused on companies' ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance strategies and practices) for their portfolio management.

For example, last year large institutional investors such as California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) were updating their investment criteria. CalPERS updated its Global Governance Principles and now requires their portfolio companies to identify and recruit of directors with expertise and experience in climate change risk management strategies.

Ceres’ analysis was based on practical recommendations from the  report View from the Top – How Corporate Boards can Engage on Sustainability Performance. This Ceres research effort highlighted evolving expectations on the systems and actions that companies and boards need to put in place for “effective” board sustainability oversight from the investor and stakeholder points of view.

Results: So what did the joint G&A Institute and Ceres analysis reveal?
  • While companies acknowledge the role of their board for sustainability, not all of them formalize sustainability in the charter of the board committees. Establishing formal systems, such as board duties in charter incorporation allows sustainability to be raised in board meetings in a systematic and in-depth manner, rather than in an ad hoc way. While 97% of the companies surveyed broadly note that their boards oversee sustainability, only 58% specifically included ESG issues in a board committee charter and area of responsibility.
  • Very few companies formally require expertise in sustainability issues as a board qualification for nominees for election to the board of directors. Ceres’ report underlined the importance of having board members qualified in material sustainability issues would empower directors to engage with management in a thoughtful and robust manner. Yet, only ten percent of companies surveyed included this criterion in their board nomination process.
  • A limited universe of companies do integrate sustainability matters into their board evaluation processes. Ceres’ report noted that continuous evaluation of board performance—including on ESG issues of material importance—is necessary for boards to remain effective in their oversight duties. However, only 15 percent of companies surveyed included environmental and social issues in their board evaluations. If these issues were included in their board performance evaluations, the Ceres staff noted, directors would certainly be more diligent in their oversight duties.
  • Companies do disclose the role of the board in overseeing sustainability risk, yet there is limited disclosure of board decision-making. The Ceres report called on companies to provide more public disclosure, detailing both the role of the corporate board in overseeing sustainability risks, as well as issues that the board prioritized and key decision taken. Only 33 percent of companies surveyed identified that their boards have a critical role to play in overseeing sustainability risk—and yet even for these companies there was limited additional detail provided on the specific issues that the board had prioritized or key decisions made.

Key Conclusions

Overall, the joint G&A Institute and Ceres analysis underlines the thesis that while a growing number of companies are starting to publicly acknowledge that their boards play a role in sustainability, the disclosure largely exists at the high level, and the "30,000-foot high view" approach does not provide the needed details on prioritization and decision making that stakeholders are expecting.

This shortcoming in corporate disclosure and reporting means that stockholders and key stakeholders are not able to see if this apparent corporate focus has been effective—or if the board of directors' oversight has led to improved sustainability related performance impacts (tangible results that can be clearly articulated).

This shortcoming does not necessarily mean that the processes in question do not exist—just that stakeholders don’t yet have enough information to make the decisions on which companies are doing well on this issue, and reward companies with leading practice.

Going forward, Ceres and G&A Institute encourage company boards and managements to offer a clearer line of sight on both the systems in place for board sustainability oversight, and also the actions they are taking related to integrate material sustainability issues into overall company performance evaluation, risk management and the creation of long-term value for shareholders.

[1] These companies have now reached 108 companies (“companies surveyed”) within the index. 

—Louis D. Coppola, co-founder and executive vice president of Governance & Accountability Institute, Inc. (; and Veena Ramani, program director, capital market systems, Ceres (

Monday, March 13, 2017

The Growing Importance of Industry Self-regulation

Every business today faces tremendous ethical challenges, and increased transparency brings these challenges to the forefront. I believe that vigorous self-regulation will be one critical element to assure a future grounded in integrity. Here’s why.

The call for ethics in interpersonal and organizational relationships is ageless—and increasingly important in our interconnected, global world. Businesses are challenged to grow trust, not only for their shareholders, but with their employees, customers, supply chains, communities, and on behalf of the wider, natural world. Simultaneously, governments strive to develop, implement, and manage a functioning legal and regulatory system that rewards fairness and curbs abuses. Businesses, in turn, resist what they term “overregulation,” that—they argue—muddles markets and curtails competitiveness.

These trends are particularly important when we consider the increasing rate of economic, political, and technological changes affecting us all.

We now exist in a global society, economy, and ecosphere, where many companies and institutions operate across borders. Money, ideas, people, and jobs are increasingly fluid. In this context, national decisions have both limitations and tremendous worldwide implications including: Are we at war or peace? Do we promote free trade or protectionism? Should we enjoy growth or retrenchment? How do we value equity versus efficiency? We see the negative impacts of these some of these decisions in mass migrations, growing inequality and threats to the sustainability of our climate.

We live and work with complex systems that are well beyond the grasp of common understanding, yet the implications of these systems are increasingly visible to us. As transparency increases, businesses become exposed to wide knowledge and judgement of the outcomes of their operations on people, communities and the planet. Their “shields” that may have worked in the past—such as legal privilege, “protective” philanthropy, and in some markets, outright bribes—now just compound the problems when they are exposed by social and other media.

We now have products and services developed and delivered in ways beyond the capacity of governments to “keep up.” This challenge is evident in the developing world, where even functioning states cannot provide basic services and oversight, not to mention the increasing failures of some states and the emerging power and influence of non-state actors. The challenge is also impacting developed economies, where the rate of change exceeds the capacity of government to understand, let alone react.

I recently retired from the beer industry where I had the privilege to struggle with these issues with my colleagues in beverage companies around the world. I became increasingly aware that many decisions previously attributed to governments now are made in the private sector. Stakeholders are demanding that companies address issues of equity, fairness, sustainability, human rights, access to health care and education in ways that are new—and for man—unfamiliar. It is a business world far more complex than one based solely on increasing shareholder returns. The Carnegie Endowment and Virginia Haufler titled this trend “the public role of the private sector.”

As a result, leading companies engage with diverse interests and seek to create new products and services that build value for all stakeholders including but certainly not limited to shareholders. Governments, recognizing that they cannot keep up with the rate of change, may seek to simplify regulation to impact the most critical questions of equity and fairness.

Of course, this leaves a great gap that is beginning to be filled with effective and transparent systems of self-regulation. For example, food manufacturers are agreeing to reduce sugar and salt and artificial ingredients. Standards of environmental and quality being driven by ISO standards that exceed regulatory requirements. Global codes and commitments on human rights and sustainability are being led via business engagement with the UN Global Compact.

In my experience in the alcohol beverage field, companies began with standards of self-regulation in major markets, then extended those standards to emerging markets with limited governmental capacity. Alcohol beverage producers, through the International Alliance for Responsible Drinking, then agreed upon principles, standards and models for self-regulation, and producers committed to visible and measurable actions to reduce harmful drinking around the world.

Even in the emerging field of artificial intelligence, self-regulation will likely play a pivotal role. As tech companies become worried about regulators creating unworkable and outdated rules around their work, they are turning to self-regulation. In my next blog, I will look at the ethical and societal challenges coming with artificial intelligence, and in the third and final blog of this series, I will take a look at work begun by tech giants to craft a self-regulatory response.

Note: This post is adapted from remarks made at Integrity 2017, sponsored by the Center for Enterprise Ethics, Daniels School of Business, University of Denver.

—Barton Alexander, Principal, Alexander & Associates LLC

Monday, March 6, 2017

The Growing Supply Chain Landscape: CSR Takes the Lead

From medium-sized businesses to members of the Fortune 500, organizations are investing heavily to ensure sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are ingrained across their supply chains – and they are already seeing major returns.

Consider the results of the 2017 Sustainable Procurement Barometer, recently released by EcoVadis and HEC Paris. The data, gathered from supply chain professionals around the world, shows multiple business drivers behind a global maturation of the supply chain sustainability market. The research found three primary drivers of sustainability:
  • Brand reputation – identified as a critical factor by 63 percent of organizations;
  • Risk mitigation – identified as a critical factor by 61 percent of organizations; and
  • Compliance – identified as a critical factor by 57 percent of organization.
For the most mature organizations, the benefits are even more tangible. Sustainable procurement is directly impacting the bottom line. In fact, 50 percent of sustainable procurement leaders experienced increased revenue from sustainability initiatives in 2016, which represents 33 percent increase over non-leaders.

For organizations looking to expand their sustainable footprint, supply chain transparency plays a critical role. However, only 15 percent of organizations have complete supply chain visibility into the CSR and sustainability performance of both tier one and two suppliers. Beyond that, only six percent of organizations report having full visibility into tier three suppliers and beyond, according to the research.

While supply chain visibility continues to be a top challenge for procurement organizations today, nearly every organization surveyed (97 percent) places a high level of importance on sustainability. This consensus among supply chain leaders illustrates just how established the sustainable procurement field has become — a major development in less than 10 years’ time.

Interestingly, the report found that over the past three years, the sustainable procurement landscape has shifted its emphasis away from environmental issues and toward social, labor and business ethics. Consider the following findings:
  • Only 18 percent of organizations are placing significantly more importance on the environment today than they were three years ago;
  • 33 percent of organizations are placing significantly more emphasis on social and labor issues than three years ago; and
  • 33 percent are placing significantly more emphasis on business ethic.
What is driving one-third of respondents toward a more socially and ethically responsible supply chain? Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that while social issues continue to grow, environmental efforts may have peaked—these efforts have been maturing for a much longer time, and feasibly came to a head in 2015 with COP21. Meanwhile, the rise of due diligence laws—California Transparency, UK Modern Slavery Act, EU Conflict Minerals and the Devoir de Vigilance bill—are shining a spotlight on social and labor issues in the supply chain.

Consumers are also making their preferences felt when it comes to responsible sourcing. Unilever recently surveyed more than 20,000 people across five countries to gauge sentiment around brands using socially and environmentally responsible practices. The study found that one third of consumers intentionally buy from brands that are doing social or environmental good, an opportunity that represents more than one trillion dollars for brands that make their sustainability credentials clear.

While the sustainable procurement landscape is still in its infancy, it’s rapidly growing and maturing across the globe. The increase in consumer pressure, and the competitive benefits of operating in a sustainable fashion, will continue to push companies to become more socially responsible and scale their sustainability efforts. This evolution will set the stage for a new phase of sustainable procurement maturity in 2017 and beyond—one where the leaders continue to generate tangible business value and scale programs further, and the laggards either get in the game, or risk falling dreadfully behind.

—Pierre-Francois Thaler, co-founder and co-CEO of EcoVadis. 

EcoVadis is a supplier sustainability ratings company that helps organizations institute corporate social responsibility and various sustainability programs. EcoVadis Twitter: @ecovadis

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Effective Communication Strategies for Employees in Today's Challenging Business Climate

During a merger and acquisition, one aspect of the transition that is often overlooked by large corporations is an effective communication strategy to their frontline employees, which can often lead to feelings of uncertainty, confusion in their roles, and a decrease in company morale.

According to a recent report published by Deloitte, 75 percent of corporate executives and private equity investors expect that deal activity will increase in 2017, with 64 percent of those surveyed expecting larger deals. Based on reports that large corporations including Macy’s and Dish have been in discussions about takeovers, they could be adding some validity to those predictions early on in the year.

Jeff Corbin, CEO and founder of APPrise Mobile, spent 20 years as an executive in the corporate communications industry, but then saw a larger need for solutions that solve specific communications challenges that industry professionals deal with on an everyday basis. He spoke with CR Magazine about these challenges and solutions.

CR Magazine: Can you give some best practices for an effective communications strategy—among senior level executives and to employees?

Jeff Corbin: Effective communication is all about transparency and the personal touch. Providing just the right amount of information on a relatively frequent basis and doing so in a way in which employees “feel the love” can go a long way. This is especially important during times of change within an organization.

CR: How can leadership effectively engage and communicate with employees during transitional periods? 

JC: During transitional periods, the most important thing is to be consistent in the way in which you are communicating. If e-mail is the primary communications method, then sharing frequent emails on what is taking place is key. However, as stated above, the personal touch is critical. Live events (town hall meetings), webcasts of the events, video archives and short CEO vlogs go a long way towards engaging with employees and are a great bang for the buck.

CR: How does an effective communications process tie into corporate responsibility? 

JC: Your employees are your most important audience. They are your ambassadors who carry your organization’s key messages to all external audiences. It’s the responsibility of corporate to ensure that the message does not get muddied or confused as a result of ineffective communications.

CR: What are the benefits to using an app like APPrise Mobile when running a business? 

JC: These days, pretty much everyone has an Apple or Android mobile device, and these devices are very personal to them. theEMPLOYEEapp allows a company to accomplish all of the things mentioned above. It allows for the instantaneous push of information and control of messaging to all employees no matter where they are located, and even supports videos and live events so that employees can feel connected with corporate even if they are not sitting at headquarters. It also centralizes communications so employees have all key messages at their fingertips 24/7. For front-line employees in particular who don’t work in an office environment (which happens to be 80 percent of the overall workforce), it allows for them to feel a part of a corporate community.

CR: Why is technology so important in effective communications today? 

JC: Same answer as the one above. Everyone has a mobile device. Never before has an organization had such an opportunity to get information and control its messaging simultaneously, instantaneously, and effectively to their entire workforce.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

How to Grow the Business Bottom Line

Jennifer Hartz and Lisa Tilt
Companies should use marketing communications strategies that leverage their social responsibility investment

There are two critical business imperatives that drive corporate operations—revenue enhancement and human resources. If both of those business levers could be augmented and sustained through one program, would you apply it? That is the outcome when organizations purposefully align corporate responsibility with marketing communications (MarComm).

According to the Committee for Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy’s Giving in Numbers 2016 report, business performance is tied to social responsibility. This finding presumes that companies are connecting their public and business strategies and they are skilled at sharing that information internally and externally. If either of these presumptions is untrue, then a great deal of time and money is being wasted.

Paralleling CR and MarComm allows a business to derive the full value of its civic investments. This symbiotic relationship touches every level and function of the organization—from operations to sustainability, or from regulatory practices to growth.

Once a leadership team decides to leverage CR with intentionality, it’s time to develop a platform and programs that support organizational opportunities to engage the MarComm team to amplify success in that area. There are revenue enhancement through three performance areas: brand differentiation, new products and services, and new markets.

Brand Differentiation 
By demonstrating strong values and a commitment to the community, a company will strengthen its reputation, and differentiate its brand from competing brands. The result is increasing customer/client attraction and loyalty, which drive sales.

Effective CR MarComm depends on how the organization’s internal and external messages align with each other and with its core values. “Think of cause marketing as you would any other brand collaboration with for profit companies,” Brooke Golden of Clif Bar said in a Forbes article. “Find a cause whose advocates share your consumer’s profile, understand their networks and strengths, and identify where you can come together around a shared voice and message to amplify both your efforts.”

MarComm for in the social responsibility realm should fully commit to the non-profit relationship. Strategies include:
  • Developing relationships with the non-profit’s other (non-competitive, but like-minded) partners to build your company’s brand reputation; and 
  • Creating content about the partnership and its cause that features your employees and/or products side-by-side with the non-profit’s beneficiaries to tell the story.
New Products and Services 
Businesses that identify and satisfy a need—be it allergen-free snacks or expert accounting service—are beneficial to society. Performing this action requires an active presence to learn and understand market demands and bring opportunities to the surface.

Expressing a charity’s vision and mission effectively is an important task for MarComm teams to keep in mind as they build partnerships with non-profits for the benefit of both organizations via two predominant strategies:
  • Sponsorship – ongoing or event-driven alignment of the business with a non-profit via the donation of funds, products, services, access to donors, and volunteers; and 
  • Co-branding – found often in consumer products, a non-profit can endorse goods or services in exchange for money and/or exposure on products, signage, or ads.
New Markets (Locations and Audiences) 
Volunteering alongside residents and activists, politicians and professionals, and parents and teachers, creates awareness, goodwill and trust within the community or demographic. The MarComm team should participate actively in message development and deployment, since most non-profit organizations function with lean teams.

It’s best to market involvement to new geographies and audiences with a light touch—coming across as self-congratulatory negates the good work the company does through the partnership. Enable non-profit partners to advocate for the collaboration through marketing initiatives such as:
  • Activate email marketing from the non-profit to its supporters that profiles a case study of the results both entities are achieving together; and 
  • Use pictures, testimonials, and data to tell the story in the traditional and social media channels of both organizations. Also disseminate via internal communications that connect with employees.
It's important to recognize that CSR is multi-faceted. Money matters, ergo people matter. Inform and engage employees and customers so they know why the company is investing in this cause, how to participate, and how their involvement changes the world.

—Lisa Tilt and Jennifer Hartz

Tilt is president of Full Tilt Consulting, a content and communications strategy firm founded in 2006 that works with momentum organizations to grow their business through marketing and employer branding programs. 

Hartz is president of Corporate Hartz, LLC, founded in 2000 to counsel companies on high-impact Corporate Social Responsibility and advise families on philanthropy.