Triple Bottom Line and Strategic CSR

Today, there is a change of mindset concerning the maximization of profit, in which it is no more an exclusive goal of the company in terms of economic aspect but also in social and environmental aspects (Kleine & Von Hauff, 2009). These economic, social and environmental bottom lines are known today as the ‘triple bottom line’ or ‘3BL’. The idea behind this concept is to suggest that corporation’s ultimate success should be measured not only by the traditional financial bottom line, but should also look at its social and environmental performances. It stresses that firms do have social and environmental bottom lines, and should be treating them in the same way as the way they treat the financial or economic aspects (Norman & MacDonald, 2003).

The concept of triple bottom line does suggest a controversy of its own, with scholars (Cochran and Wood, 1984) questioning whether firms adopting this kind of strategy can still make profit. Having triple bottom line means that a company would have to spread its resources in order to achieve its triple goal, rather than making the most out of their resources to achieve a single goal (economic), and this might lead firms to be less competitive, which might suggests less profit. In relation to competitiveness, there have also been recent findings indicating that companies do not really want to adopt the Triple Bottom Line strategy (Norman & MacDonald, 2003), presumably because the concern is still on profit making.

Despite the pessimistic view that triple bottom line can only jeopardize the firms sole purpose (making profit), there are views that support the idea of adopting triple bottom line strategy in order to increase the company’s performance, which in the end would produce more profit. Drucker (1984) pointed out an idea of how business can convert its social responsibilities into economic opportunity and economic benefit. Much more of the same, (Norman & MacDonald, 2003) suggest that when social and environmental concerns, which more or less are often associated with CSR, can be strategically integrated into business, it can improve business performance

But in reality the situation is a bit harsh, as it turns out that firms are still practicing a single bottom line model (economic), with social and environmental concerns as part of window dressing (Norman & MacDonald, 2003). It is then the company’s decision whether to treat the social and environmental aspects in a strategic point of view alongside with the economic aspect, or merely as an act of philanthropy or window dressing. We can see how companies these days are publishing CSR reports, explaining their concern on social and environmental aspects. If the aim of publishing the reports is for the sake of public relations stunt, then there will be less value for the company because reports should be a part of company’s ‘strategic CSR’ approach, used to reflect the impact of company’s past and future business performance (Vogel, 2005).

CSR is often very well associated with public relations and marketing activities, especially in the developing countries where companies simplify the meaning of CSR with corporate philanthropy and doing it for a mere sake of good public relations (Newell, 2005). The likes of cause related marketing, corporate social marketing, and corporate philanthropy (Kotler & Lee, 2005) is getting widely accepted, with the community/society as the subject. Some scholars (Porter and Kramer, 2002, and Lantos, 2002) even relate corporate philanthropy, sponsorships and cause related marketing with ‘strategic CSR’, as long as it tied with organizational objectives and strategy. But this view can be seen as too narrow and companies should go further looking at the likes of importance in exceeding customer’s expectation or how to gain competitive advantage through a responsible approach (Galbreath, 2008). By approaching CSR in a more strategic manner, firms can support the creation of effective sustainable development and become a solution to meet social and ecological challenges (Kleine and Von Hauff 2009).

How far CSR can be strategic is another question. But looking at their nature of relationship with stakeholders and many aspects within and outside the company, it is easy to conclude that CSR fits the criteria of being strategic, because it highly affects the company’s course in meeting their objectives (Ansoff, 1980). Galbreath (2008) argues that putting CSR within the context of company’s strategy would be extremely important and in order to deliver well, the role of corporate executives to take a lead in developing CSR initiatives is central. The challenge now is to formulate a strategy that will benefit both the society and company. In doing so, Galbreath (2008) further suggests that CSR should take into consideration the six dimensions of corporate strategy: firm mission, strategic issues, markets, customer needs, resources and competitive advantage so that it could strategically contribute to good management practice, economic benefit, and societal welfare.

CSR Definition and Development

There has been a long debate about CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) definition, with no single clear consensus yet produced in this area (McWilliams et al., 2006). Blowfield & Murray (2008) indicate that there has never been a straightforward explanation on CSR definition whether from companies, governments, public and civil society. In an analysis of more than 500 CSR articles in the past 30 years, De Bakker’s et al (2005) found out that this developing and vibrant field does not have any general central concept. Lockett et al. (2006) also adds this point by saying that although in brief CSR knowledge appeared to be well established, this field is far from having a single domination of a particular theoretical approach.

The question now is: ‘Is a clear single definition in CSR needed?’ Some scholars argued that the vagueness and lack of clarity in the definition does not suggest a weakness, but instead enriches and enliven the CSR debate, and one reason to explain the variety of CSR definition is due to its nature of fluidity, in which it emerges from various management sub disciplines such as marketing, strategy, accounting and also from other sources such as law, economics, political science (Crane et al., 2008). Each approach views CSR from a slightly different lens and might suggest the differences in definition and concept development.

The development of the CSR concept itself might go back as far as 1930s and 1940s (Carroll, 2006). But the roots of the CSR concept itself can be traced far away back to the 1800s where industrial revolution changed the relationship of business and society (Carroll, 2008). The emergence of factory system during that era has pushed business owners to make workers more productive, sometimes with irresponsible actions, and by doing so it was widely believed that this system only brings social problems such as labor unrest, poverty, women and child labor (Wren, 2005 as cited in Carroll, 2008). However, it was also at the same time that some industrialists came out with new initiatives in increasing workers productivity by introducing a welfare scheme for its employees (Wren, 2005 as cited in Carroll, 2008). This new approach suggests a greater degree in business and society’s relationship, more specifically in social responsibilities contribution (Buchholz and Rosenthal, 1997), where helping the society to improve would likely support the development of a business itself (Porter & Kramer, 2006). However, it was not until the 1950s that CSR came into the literature and took a mainstream path, when Bowen (1953) published the literature discussing specifically about the responsibility of businessmen. His question at that time was ‘What responsibilities to society may businessmen reasonably be expected to assume?’, where it came out as a concern that business has an enormous power, which might bring negative consequences to the society.

Almost two decades after, in a hypothetical response to Bowen’s statement, Friedman (1970) argues that the only social responsibility of a company is to increase its profits; assuming that company equates to businessmen. But not long after, on the contrary to this argument, Davis (1973) challenged the idea by saying that companies have to consider other aspects beyond economic (profits) and legal requirements. The argument suggests clearly that businesses do have a certain degree of responsibility to the society; to act beyond their obligation and beyond their compliance to legal aspects. More on the same turf, later on Carroll (1991) conclude this idea through his ‘Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility’, saying that business should have a set of responsibilities to the society, not only economic and legal but also ethical and discretionary (philanthropic) responsibilities.

The importance to look beyond economic and legal responsibilities is pretty much the same with the idea of looking at the other’s interests or in a more popular term known as the ‘stakeholders’. The ‘stakeholders’ became a buzzword for management world, suggesting that the firm should balance multiple interests, not only to its shareholders but also employees, suppliers, dealers, local communities and the nation at large (Johnson, 1971). Several other scholars like Jones (1980) and Freeman (1984) also point out the importance of looking beyond the interests of shareholders and extending it to the interests of all stakeholders. The idea of stakeholder is then being widely acknowledged as one of the fundamental ideas of CSR for a business, which is for them to have an obligation and responsibility to work to meet the needs of the wider interests (Clarkson, 1995).

The importance of stakeholders is pretty much central to the development of CSR definition by international bodies these days. The Commission of the European Communities in 2001 defines CSR as ‘a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis’. Meanwhile, The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in 1999 suggests CSR as ‘the commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community and society at large to improve their quality of life’.

Nowadays, the terms corporate responsibility, corporate social responsibility, sustainability, business ethics, and much more are being widely used by companies, and at the same time it is also being widely translated, which might result in a different kind of interpretation. Epstein (1987) pointed out that the concept of corporate social responsibility, corporate social responsiveness and business ethics are closely related, with a high possibility of overlapping. Crane et al. (2008) suggest that with the development of various concepts coming from different scholars, a collision between one another occurs, and differences in definition is more likely than a single close term definition. Over time it looks like new definitions and interpretations of CSR will keep on coming, but actually these new concepts would only be an extended definition form the previous scholars’ research (Carroll, 2006).

A Comparison of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in Developing Countries: Introduction

The discussion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is getting much more coverage these days, not only from the private sectors but also governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the academics throughout the world. One of the reasons is because corporations received high social, political and economic pressure to pay attention to the social and environmental impact of their operations (Blowfield and Murray, 2011). Companies are now starting to put CSR as their priority in doing business, and corporate social reporting is getting much more organized with international standards such as Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The governments set up new policies on CSR and even in some countries try to make it as a legal obligation. NGOs also actively participate in different CSR initiatives, partnering with companies in addressing social and environmental issues.

On the other hand, academics also keep their interest high in this subject due to the never-ending debate on its definition and scope of activities (Halme et al., 2009). Arguments and comments were made in order to justify what CSR is and what it should cover. But instead of arriving into a single conclusion, the debate keeps on flowing and the scope of CSR is only getting wider.

However, despite the lively debate on CSR definition and scope, there is also a missing link in understanding CSR as a complete subject, as the majority of CSR discussions occurred as a result of research in developed countries, with little known from developing countries. The danger of this is that western perspective might omit some of the most important CSR issues in developing countries, and would lead to an implementation of inapplicable context (Fox, 2004). Furthermore, getting into the developing countries’ perspective is heavily needed in setting up the global understanding of CSR because some of the most challenging socio economic issues are happening in developing countries, such as poverty, lack of equality, and poor governance. These are the issues that companies can help improve with better CSR initiatives.

Today, numerous big and multinational companies (MNCs) are operating in developing countries, expanding their business into the new untapped market. The challenge for these companies are to align their CSR practices accordingly to the right local context when addressing this issue. This is not an easy task for them, as usually the country of origin of a company affects the way companies practice their CSR activities (Gjølberg, 2009), especially if they have limited understanding in the new environment. Failing to understand the new environment would be likely to cause frictions among different stakeholders such as employees, customers, suppliers, government and NGOs in their destination country (Freeman, 1984).

Throughout this research CSR practices in developing countries will be examined, mainly by looking at how MNCs and big companies operate and respond to this subject. These companies will encounter different types of societies in their destination country, which usually means a different perception on CSR and societal contexts (Halme et al., 2009). And this is very evident when later on we discuss developing countries where different agendas for CSR are being pursued (Welford et al., 2007). Also, the levels of socio economic, cultural values, politics, and environment condition have a high influence in the discussion about CSR in the following chapters.

In this research we will put the scholars and academics perspective about CSR in the literature review chapter, discussing the differences of definition, development, the concept of triple bottom line and practices in developing countries. This will set us a good foundation in understanding CSR as a full concept. After that, the methodology chapter will follow with explanation about how this research is conducted in order to get a more valid conclusion about the different CSR practices despite the limitations. Then, case studies of eight different companies in four developing countries (Brazil, India, Indonesia and South Africa) will be presented to look at different CSR practices more in detail.

The case studies will examine different kinds of responses from companies to CSR agendas in a particular country, and how they are addressing these issues with existing organization capacity/resources and their manager’s ability to respond. The case studies section will be followed by a discussion on these case studies and the role of companies in developing countries. Some questions will be repeatedly examined and left open throughout this research, such as how far CSR is being influenced by the socio economic condition in a country, and how companies can play a role in eradicating poverty through CSR initiatives. In the end this research will try to conclude the existing theory, facts and evidence gathered from academic literature, reports and case studies.

A Comparison of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in Developing Countries: Abstract

Last year I was doing a dissertation on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices in developing countries. I am going to put in bit by bit of my research, see if that makes sense for you. It starts on CSR discussion as a growing field with increasing popularity, especially for public companies. However most of the research has been done in developed countries, with little knowledge about CSR in developing countries. It is then interesting to see how this theory, being developed from western perspectives can cope with the reality in the developing countries. We will use a comparison of different case studies of companies operating in four developing countries (Brazil, India, Indonesia and South Africa) to further examine this matter. In each country we will look at case studies from telecommunication and one other industry that has a significant presence.

My research produced two different outcomes, suggesting that CSR practices in developing countries can be either adopting or not adopting the western perspective. But despite the differences of frameworks that are being used, CSR in developing countries is heavily bounded with the socio economic condition of a country, especially where the existence of the poor community is very evident, and this will affect the company’s CSR practices. Cultural and religious history also influences CSR practice in developing countries where giving back to the community can be seen as an obligation of the more wealthy. Furthermore, business can play a major role in developing countries to help improve the socio economic condition of the local community by acting as a development agent. The availability of resources that they have can give a significant impact to their surroundings.

CSR and The Law of Attraction

It’s been quite a while since the last time I posted in this blog. Reason is: it was never easy for me to write something unless it triggers me; put sparks in my head. Now to cut the story short, last night I had a discussion with a friend of mine @Abenk_SV a singer/songwriter/social-entrepreneur-in-the-making. We talked about his latest project ‘The Sound of Movement’, @soundofmovement (I can assure you that this one is going to be big). Put the project aside, we had some very interesting brainstorming session with ideas and thoughts swarming around like crazy, but something triggered me out of last night’s meeting; it was when we arrived at a discussion about ‘The Law of Attraction’.

This is not a brand new thing, and if we recall a few years back I’m sure most of us will still remember how the buzzword of ‘The Law of Attraction’ has been popularized by the film and book called ‘The Secret’. Again to cut the chase, the law is basically a metaphysical theory that concludes ‘like attracts like’. So when we focus on positive thoughts, we can bring positive results. It works vice versa though.

I am a believer of energy transfers, and when discussing about ‘The Law of Attraction’ (a topic that has been forgotten by me for quite a while), then out of a sudden I’ve been thinking about how it might relates with CSR. Now if we look more closely, CSR deals heavily with stakeholders (employee, community, suppliers, customers, etc). Here, CSR is the ultimate magnet, the center of attraction for these stakeholders. It has a mechanism and potential to create a social web/network between stakeholders. It represents corporations as a melting pot of economic, social and environmental issues, wrapped together to produce a positive outcome.

From this perspective, the concept of ‘The Law of Attraction’ should apply perfectly with CSR development. When you treat CSR positively into the heart of your corporate strategy, the result would be immense. It creates a wave of positive energy for the stakeholders. It could boost up employee motivation. It could help poor communities. It could help companies to work closely with suppliers to find solutions. It could attract customers since you are being responsible. Put it vice versa, and you can think of what you can get. Treat your CSR as cosmetics or part of green washing campaign to boost up your image would lead you nowhere. It will only attract short term projects, ineffective money spending and unsustainable results. 

CSR Budget

I hate this discussion. Talking about how much should you allocate for CSR activities is just nonsense. Why do you need such amount of big money to execute CSR programs? Are we talking about donations here? Think again…do you need a significant big budget to provide a better, more responsible service? Do you need a sum large of money to extra educate people about your products?

For me, treating CSR as a separate entity that merely does social activities such as donation and philanthropy is not strategic. And yes, I hate when people ask how much CSR budget that we spent, when it actually refers to how much money did we spend for philanthropic activities.

Much more of searching for meaning

A little bit of Votaw’s view to follow up the last post of ‘searching for meaning’.

‘The term social responsibility is a brilliant one; it means something but not always the same thing, to everyboday. To some it conveys the idea of legal responsibility or liability; to others it means socially responsible behaviour in an ethical snse; still to others, the meaning transmitted is that of ‘responsible for,’ in a causal mode; many simply equate it with ‘charitable contributions’; some take it to mean socially ‘conscious’ or ‘aware’; many of those who embrace it most fervently see it as mere synonym for ‘legitimacy’ in the context of ‘belonging’ or being proper or valid; a few see it as a sort of fiduciary duty imposing higher standards of bahaviour on businessmen than on citizens at large. Even the antonyms, socially ‘irresponsible’ and ‘nonresponsible’, are subject to multiple interpretations.

Socially responsibility is indeed a sexy term.

The tree of life

 

Amazing, got this quote from spitirtualnetworks.com…it simplifies, truly simplifies the whole meaning of life, your other half and god.

 

“The tree of life comes into full bloom through the bonding of man,woman and God

Yin-Yang, soul mates, twin flames…this bonding is perceived in many different ways, but when the “Living Root” GOD begins to grow and spread from their hearts, into their nervous systems, into the pathways in their minds, they are both brought to life as life begins to flow through them. 

Love, the nectar, the sap of the tree…as the branches grow and spread through them…they are then used to bring this life to the whole world. Their bond made complete for this very thing..to be a doorway…”

Searching for meaning

Differences are inevitable, even when we are making assumptions on what does CSR actually means. People in the North (or developed countries) think of CSR as an advanced form of responsibility which cover issues such as consumer protection, fair trade, sustainability & green marketing, product creation, employee engagement, etc. On the other side, if you talk to people in the South (developing countries), they will relate most of the CSR activities with corporate philanthropy. At least that is happening in Indonesia, and I believe the other South East Asian countries would think of the same. The question is: would that be right or wrong? The simple answer is: IT DEPENDS…

To make it even more sound, there is no right or wrong in CSR definition, and that is including the attempt on initiatives/activities being made. What matters is to understand completely the context and challenges in particular geographic region or maybe in a different sort of situation. Surely initiatives of a company operating in a poor remote island would be very different than those operating in London suburb. Putting CSR activities in the remote island might be tricky as well, especially if the community is pretty much left behind. Do not even think of consumer protection, as the CSR issue might be more towards social. Some basic needs such as health or education provision might give much more impact than giving a micro credit to the community…again it depends on the context.

What we know is that CSR activities has been driven by investors, campaign groups and also consumers, but that being the case in a more developed countries. The stakeholders are active and drive the company’s initiative. Turning our head to developing countries, the case is totally different…the stakeholders are now the CSR subject. Does consumer have enough say to drive the company’s initiative? Does the community help the company to shape its responsible business through active participation and discussion? Sadly the involvement of consumer and community in developing countries is not that significant.

The context differences shaped how people interpret CSR in different countries. Problems and challenges being faced in Indonesia would be totally different with condition in Germany. Regulation might be one of them, with different standards of corporate governance, business law, investment policy and so on. The supremacy of the regulation can also be the main reason why CSR worked or not.

It also pretty much related with culture in a particular country or region. Cultural aspects hold high importance in determining the success of CSR activities. Fail to understand the context of the culture would not deliver the maximum impact of CSR agenda. The differences in value produce different kind of interpretation for much of the CSR issues. Child labor might be very sensitive issue in developed countries, but probably not in China or other developing countries. This is the fact: with minimum opportunity, in developing countries, being employed is a major privilege. That is why you want to get employed since you are young, because in the end producing money for your family would give more benefit, at least in order to survive. Do not get me wrong, because I am not saying that child labor is ok, but with severe economic condition and social pressure in developing countries, there is no option left for the poor. Unless if the government proactively (which is not the case) giving a total assistance for the poor with education, health, and other basic needs.

Knowledge, technology and economy also differs, and they also shaped the context of CSR in different parts of the world. This explains why South East Asian countries love the philanthropy model, because when basic needs of the community has not been met, than companies do have opportunity to contribute by filling the gap.

Could there be a single CSR definition in this world? Might be not, and it shouldn’t be. But being developed in the North, CSR has been the baby of developed countries. And developing countries at some point have to follow the standards being set in the North. It might be called international CSR standards, but problems do arise when these high standards are being implemented in developing countries. It might do more harm than benefiting the society because it has different cultural values. It might also put double standards that would jeopardize the local competitive advantages of local suppliers. The challenge now is to align the established standards for developing countries; not to solely adopt a high standards, but there has to be some kind of ‘localized’ standards that balance the international requirements with local condition.

Saatnya untuk mengadopsi Social Business

Muhammad Yunus, peraih nobel perdamaian 2006 asal Bangladesh memperkenalkan model bisnis yang ia namakan Social Business. Model ini dipercaya cukup visioner dan mampu untuk mengatasi berbagai pemasalahan sosial melalui pemberdayaan masyarakat dengan mengutamakan terciptanya berbagai kegiatan ekonomi dan kemandirian.

Selama ini tujuan utama perusahaan yang kita ketahui adalah meningkatkan kekayaan pemegang saham atau meraih sebanyak-banyaknya keuntungan. Tapi tidak halnya dengan Social Business, karena model ini difokuskan untuk menyelesaikan berbagai permasalahan sosial, ekonomi, dan lingkungan yang selalunya menghantui manusia seperti kelaparan, pengangguran, polusi, kebodohan, penyakit dan lainnya.  Namun ini tidak serta merta berarti bahwa Social Business dilarang untuk mencetak laba, karena justru sebaliknya, keuntungan akan membantu di dalam mengembangkan operasi dan berpotensi untuk menyelesaikan masalah-masalah sosial lainnya. Perlu diingat, Social Business bukanlah berbentuk yayasan atau NGO (non profit organization).

Seperti halnya perusahaan pada umumnya, di dalam Social Business, terdapat investor yang menanamkan modal agar perusahaan dapat beroperasi. Yang menarik adalah investor tidak akan mendapatkan deviden dan investasi yang ditanamkan akan dikembalikan dengan jumlah yang sama, tidak lebih tidak kurang. Semua keuntungan yang diperoleh perusahaan akan ditanamkan kembali untuk berbagai kebutuhan ekspansi.

Mungkin bagi sebagian dari kita, konsep ini tidaklah asing dan bahkan penerapannya sudah dilakukan beberapa kali. Telkomsel pun sebenernya pernah menerapkan hal serupa melalui program CSR nya, seperti modal bergulir untuk peternak bebek, pengrajin, usaha dodol, dan beberapa lainnya. Namun yang membedakan model Social Business yang digagas oleh Muhammad Yunus disini (dalam kaitan dengan dunia koporat) adalah pentingnya kesesuaian antara Social Business yang dijalankan dengan pengetahuan/keahlian perusahaan.

Lantas mengapa perusahaan perlu untuk melihat model Social Business ini? Ada beberapa alasan yang mendasari keterlibatan perusahaan di dalam Social Business. Yang pertama ialah kontribusi perusahaan terhadap lingkungannya. Saat ini perusahaan ‘dituntut’ untuk paling tidak mengembalikan sebagian dari pendapatannya kepada masyarakat. Hal ini kemudian diterjemahkan di dalam berbagai hal, termasuk yang cukup menjadi trend di dalam sepuluh tahun terakhir ini dengan sebutan Coprorate Social Responsibility (CSR).

Yang kedua, keterlibatan pada Social Business bisa merefleksikan strategi jangka panjang perusahaan. Veolia Water produsen air mineral bekerjasama dengan Grameen Foundation di tahun 2005 untuk memproduksi air bersih yang dapat dikonsumsi oleh masyarakat di desa-desa Bangladesh. Selama ini air yang dikonsumsi mengandung kadar arsenik yang sangat tinggi dan dampak jangka panjangnya cukup serius pada kesehatan. Yang menarik, Veolia Water melakukan proyek Social Business ini dengan basis R&D (Research & Development), dimana mereka dapat meneliti kondisi air tanah di lingkungan dengan kadar arsenik tinggi. Hal ini dipercaya dapat menberikan input yang baik bagi Veolia Water untuk dapat menghasilkan alternatif sumber air bersih yang berkualitas dan mengatasi masalah kekurangan air di masa mendatang.

Yang ketiga ialah motivasi. Perlu dipahami bahwa perusahan dijalankan oleh individu-individu yang memimpin. Melalui individu-individu inilah arah kebijakan perusahan ditentukan, dan seringkali membentuk motivasi perusahaan di dalam beroperasi. Banayak perusahaan yang memiliki motivasi untuk melakukan kebaikan kepada khalayak ramai, namun dilakukan dengan cara yang kurang memberikan dampak maksimal.

Pada tahun 2005, Muhammad Yunus melalui Grameen Foundation bekerjasama dengan salah satu perusahaan terbesar di dunia asal Perancis, Danone, untuk membentuk Social Business, yang kemudian dinamakan Grameen Danone. Sebagai informasi, Danone sangat terkenal dengan produk yogurt nya yang dipasarkan di seluruh dunia. Di dalam Social Business ini, Grameen Danone memproduksi yogurt untuk anak-anak dan menjualnya dengan harga yang mampu dijangkau oleh kalangan yang tidak mampu. Kandungan yogurt ini diantaranya zat besi, zinc, iodine dan lainnya. Diprediksi jika anak-anak ini mengkonsumsi 2 mangkuk yogurt setiap minggunya dalam jangka waktu 8-9 bulan, maka mereka akan mendapatkan nutrisi yang cukup dan membantu perkembangannya.

Sebagai Social Business, Grameen Danone berprinsip bahwa model ini harus mandiri, dalam artian mampu mendapatkan pemasukan yang lebih besar dari pengeluaran dan Danone sebagai investor tidak dibolehkan untuk mengambil sepeser pun keuntungan yang diperoleh, kecuali dana investasi awal. Kesuksesan dari perusahaan juga tidak diukur dari profit penjualan yogurt, tapi dari angka anak-anak tidak mampu yang lolos dari malnutrisi setiap tahunnya. Singkatnya, keuntungan ekonomi didapat, begitu pula dengan sisi sosialnya. Program ini pun dinilai sangat powerful, karena apa yang dilakukan oleh Danone tidak lain dari memanfaatkan keahlian yang dimilikinya selama ini (dalam hal memproduksi yogurt).

Contoh pendekatan yang dilakukan oleh Danone ini hendaknya menginspirasi perusahaan-perusahaan yang ada, karena mereka sesungguhnya memiliki potensi yang luar biasa di dalam berperan mengatasi berbagai masalah sosial dan ekonomi. Dan bukan tidak mungkin hal ini dapat dilakukan dengan lebih nyata melalui pembentukan Social Business, karena jika dibandingkan dengan pendekatan tradisional perusahaan-perusahaan dalam bentuk donasi maupun program sosial yang sifatnya jangka pendek, Social Business mampu menawarkan efek jangka panjang yang berkelanjutan. Tentu saja di sisi lainnya, tantangan yang dihadapi akan jauh lebih berat dibandingkan dengan melakukan program-program sosial yang sifatnya jangka pendek atau sesaat.

Salah satu keunggulan Social Business yang melibatkan korporasi terletak pada ketersediaan sumber daya, keahlian dan teknologi. Perusahaan dapat berperan aktif dengan memaksimalkan teknologi yang dimilikinya untuk mengatasi berbagai permasalahan sosial, ekonomi dan lingkungan. Jika selama ini porsi penerapan teknologi oleh berbagai perusahaan ditujukan untuk kepentingan komersial, mengapa sekarang tidak mulai diarahkan untuk coba diterapkan sebagai salah satu solusi permasalahan sosial, ekonomi dan lingkungan?