September 16, 2014 · 8:34 am
GreenBiz Group Inc. recently released their 2014 Sustainability & Employee Engagement Report, content generated from responses of more than 5,600 members of the GreenBiz Intelligence Panel (executives and thought leaders in the area of corporate environmental strategy and performance). GreenBiz’s report “examines aspects of corporate environmental and sustainability education initiatives at companies at varying stages of program development and provides a quantitative understanding of the evolution of employee engagement” and notes that while sustainability professionals commonly think of challenges in terms of the physical or fiscal impact of their efforts, the most problematic challenge for this area today may actually be its use of language. Take the term “employee engagement” as an example. While sustainability professionals frequently use this term to describe their attempts to motivate a company’s employees to participate in furthering the sustainability or CSR program, it’s likely that HR executives already have a definition for the term and a way to measure it. HR commonly defines engagement as an employee’s willingness to apply discretionary effort toward meeting the company’s goals and to do more than merely meet job requirements/customer needs and measures this via an index approach using employee answers to survey questions. For example “are you proud to work at this company?” or “do you feel this is a great place to work?”
If HR and Sustainability teams have different definitions of terms like employee engagement, it can cause disconnect and communication barriers. GreenBiz uses the example of a CSR professional who ran into resistance when he met with HR to talk about how to improve employee engagement efforts at his organization. When he changed the language of the conversation however, and asked to discuss how they could increase the participation numbers in the company’s sustainability programs, he was meet with much more enthusiasm. GreenBiz points out that another potential language gap occurs when Sustainability and HR professionals discuss how to achieve greater participation from employees in furthering the sustainability mission. While 73 percent of respondents indicated that their company is educating employees across the organization about its corporate sustainability goals, in a recent study by The Conference Board, only 5 percent of the S&P 500 have instituted employee CSR training. This highlights the differences in association and potential confusion that can occur between the terms “training” and “education,” where training is generally more skills based and education often refers to broader and more general learning activities.
Understanding the kinds of language used in CSR and HR programs, and how to frame such language, can be a vital tool in breaking down communication barriers within an organization. With this in mind, let’s look more closely at what GreenBiz’s report uncovered, starting with the basic definition of “sustainability” initiatives. Over the last six years the term “sustainability” has become the standard for describing such initiatives. 51% of respondents report identifying with this term, up from 49 percent in 2011 and 34 percent in 2008. While this term is increasing, two terms have lost value in describing sustainability initiatives, “environmental, health and safety” and “greening” (see chart above). Another sustainability trend for 2014 is the convergence of social and environmental issues. When GreenBiz looked at the extent to which environmental and social issues are linked today vs. five years ago, they noted an increase across all companies regardless of size. The largest increase in the correlation was at large companies, from 87% to 94%. When it comes to educating employees about their corporate sustainability goals, almost all companies participate. 73% of respondents at small companies indicated their organizations are providing this education, as did 80% of respondents at large companies. Interestingly, which department champions sustainability education efforts most seems to be dependent on the size of the company (see graphic below).
When it comes to the topics on which departments focus for employee sustainability education programs, the top 5 have remained steady over the last six years and are: “general information about sustainability initiatives,” “the company’s sustainability successes and accomplishments,” “Actions at work to conserve or protect resources,” “environmental footprint of the company,” and “volunteer programs.” For 2014, the top three motivators for employee participation in corporate sustainability activities were: “concern for the environment and society,” “evident CEO support or mandate,” and “sustainability goals included in performance evaluation.” GreenBiz’s report also cites internal hurdles to sustainability education, which include executive commitment, education and communication, budget/resources/competing priorities, and time.
This data around participation by employees in corporate CSR or Sustainability programs, links nicely to last week’s post about Millennials’ participation in “cause work.” Coming at this topic from both directions – desire on the part of Millennials to participate and corporate CSR/Sustainability professionals’ desire for higher participation levels – creates significant opportunity for everyone. Building trust levels , creating opportunities for growing camaraderie and making strides in being good stewards of the Earth, the economy and our communities in one fell swoop could be a monumental win/win for all of us.
Filed under China Gorman, Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, Data Point Tuesday, Great Place to Work, GreenBiz Group, Sustainability
Tagged as China Gorman, Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, Data Point Tuesday, Employee Engagement, environmental, Great Place to Work, GreenBiz Group, greening, health and safety, HR, Millennials, Sustainability
February 11, 2014 · 4:30 am
According to results from an annual sustainability survey by BSR and GlobeScan “State of Sustainable Business Survey 2013” which provides insights into the world of sustainable business and tracks the successes and challenges faced by corporate sustainability professionals, HR is one of the least engaged corporate functions when it comes to sustainability. Respondents of the survey ranked HR as 34% engaged when it came to their companies’ CSR and sustainability commitments in 2013. This is a 3% drop in engagement levels since 2011. However, HR is not the only corporate function recording low engagement when it comes to sustainability. Finance ranked the lowest in levels of engagement with sustainability activities, with product development, R&D, strategic planning and marketing not far behind. Respondents overall ranked marketing as only 28% engaged when it came to sustainability initiatives at their organizations and this engagement level has dropped 14% since 2011. External facing corporate functions, like corporate communications, public affairs, and the CEO’s office showed high levels of engagement with sustainability (corporate communications ranked highest in engagement levels at 77%).
It’s potentially concerning however that departments like HR and marketing, which have important relationships with both internal and external stakeholders, are showing such low levels of engagement with sustainability initiatives. Why are we not seeing higher engagement with these corporate functions?
At a time when many organizations are placing greater emphasis on their role as a socially conscious company, we find many highly successful companies leading byexample. Despite the obvious reasons for shining a light on sustainability practices like showing strong ethics and helping others/the planet, there are other incentives to highlighting such practices. Reports show that young workers more often choose employers that are socially conscious and align with their own values. Additionally, we’re seeing more and more successful companies “going green” and injecting sustainability deeply into their business strategy, using it to create value for their employees and customers. Given that today’s job seekers are looking for their work to provide them with a sense of meaning, it would seem only logical for HR to engage more completely with such initiatives – and perhaps even take the lead. But this does not appear to be the case.
BSR/GlobeScan report that only one in five companies has fully integrated sustainability into business strategy and practices, and from this data it appears that company-wide collaboration on sustainability is still the exception rather than the norm. When asked about the most important leadership challenge of business today, 62% of respondents cited the integration of sustainability into core business functions. This is a significantly higher percentage than the next leading answer, “convincing investors that sustainability enhances value’” at only 28%. Climate change and public policy frameworks promoting sustainability were ranked highest when asked what sustainability issues need collaboration the most. Consider the sustainability/social initiatives at your organization. Is there a collaborative engagement in these practices across all departments? Or do only the most external facing functions show high levels of engagement? And where is HR in the discussion at your organization? Leading? Participating? Or waiting for another function to step up?
December 4, 2012 · 4:30 am
I was reading the results of the recent Making Smart Benefit Choices survey of workers by Mercer and was struck by the confluence of societal issues that are impacting the choices workers are making today. The key insights from the survey results are these:
- Workers desire benefits with a decidedly short-term benefit over those with longer-term value
- Employers need to ramp up their workforce education efforts regarding balancing short- and long-term benefit choices
Employers are not Marie Antoinette. “Let them eat cake” cannot be an appropriate response when surveys show that cake would be a more popular benefit than, say, fruit or broccoli. (Mayor Bloomberg’s foray into the regulation of food options notwithstanding.)
So in the age of disappearing and underfunded defined pension plans and the very real specter of a bankrupt Social Security system in the US (and similar situations in most developed nations), what are the responsibilities of employers to their employees when considering changes in benefit plans? How much should employers take into account their employees’ preferences for short-term gain over long-term value?
It’s interesting to note this survey’s results. In part, respondents were asked about their preferences in a trade-off (conjoint) analysis that allowed Mercer to rank 13 core benefits. A salary increase of $500 was used as the benchmark variable against which to measure how benefits are valued by workers. Here is the chart with the results:
I’m fascinated that after a $500 salary increase, the next choice is one week of paid time off. This certainly synchs with the data that SHRM and the Families and Work Institute are publishing that more flexibility over time is becoming a cultural imperative – and the financial value of a week off is greater than $500 if you’re making more than $26,000 per year.
But given the state of retirement benefits, Social Security, and the general lack of preparedness of the workforce for retirement, the short term focus of the respondents is arresting.
But then again, we live in a business world that measures organization success quarter by quarter, rather than year by year or through business cycles. We live in a political world that brings the economy to “fiscal cliffs” with some regularity. We live in a society that appears to value now in ways that leave us unprepared for tomorrow.
So I guess it really shouldn’t surprise us that workers focus on now rather than tomorrow even though an additional $500 402(k) increase would have much greater value over time. What’s an employer to do in all good conscience? Give more paid time off or ensure a little more retirement stability? Give more paid time off or reduce employees’ share of health care costs?
This is a tough one with which HR and Benefits leaders in organizations of all sizes are wrestling. Employers surely want benefits packages that attract and retain their best and brightest talent. Employers surely want their employees to be better prepared for an uncertain financial future. It seems as if these may be in conflict, based on this survey’s results. So how to decide?
“Let them eat cake” is one way to go: continue the focus on now and leave the future to the business and policy and political leaders of the future.
I think I’d rather use some of today’s resources to educate my workforce so that they’re making truly educated choices. I think I’d rather use some of today’s influence to begin to leave behind the now focus for a future focus that might ensure a little more sustainability all around.
While I love cake – especially the chocolate kind – I think that employers have a responsibility to the economy and to the future as well as to the workforce. What about you? Are you a cake or a broccoli professional?
Filed under China Gorman, Connecting Dots, Employee Benefits, Families and Work Institute, HR, Mercer, PTO, SHRM, Sustainability, Workflex
Tagged as China Gorman, Connecting Dots, Employee Benefits, Families and Work Institute, HR, Mercer, PTO, SHRM, Sustainability, Workflex