Content uploaded by Philip H. Mirvis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Philip H. Mirvis on Jan 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Part 4
Impacts
Edited by Debbie Haski-Leventhal,
Lonneke Roza & Stephen Brammer
EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT IN
CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
Haski-Leventhal_Employee_Engagement_in_CSR_AW.indd 10 27/03/2020 22:12
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 119 8/17/20 7:25 AM
8Global Pro Bono
Service: Implications
for Employees,
Companies and the
Communities Served
Philip Mirvis, Amanda MacArthur, Marieka Walsh,
and Tanya Gapeka
Overview
Increasing numbers of corporate employees are engaged in global pro bono
(GPB) programmes, where they provide managerial and technical assistance
to organisations addressing human needs in emerging markets and under-
served communities. Drawing on data collected from over 25 firms sponsoring
GPB programmes (2010–2018), this chapter examines: (1) the varieties of and
participants in GPB programmes, (2) companies’ motivations for investing in
GPB and how programmes are managed, (3) how employees experience ser-
vice assignments, and (4) the impact of GPB on employees, companies and
the communities served. Attention is then paid to critical success factors in
GPB programmes and to areas for their continued improvement.
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 120 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Global pro bono service
1
121
Introduction: Global pro bono service
A new era of international corporate volunteerism and service is taking shape.
A growing number of companies have devised an innovative way to simul-
taneously develop employees’ leadership skills, advance corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and expand business knowledge and opportunities in
emerging markets. They are implementing service programmes that enable
their employees to provide managerial and technical assistance to small
businesses, not-for-profit organisations, government agencies and universi-
ties around the world through global pro bono (GPB) programmes.
The case has been made that these programmes are a win-win-win prop-
osition: companies, their employees and the organisations served all benefit
from the partnerships developed, new skills learned and assistance pro-
vided (Caligiuri, Mencin, & Jiang, 2013; Mirvis, Thompson, & Gohring, 2012;
Pless, Maak, & Stahl, 2011). Companies gain from staff with greater knowl-
edge of countries important to business expansion and from an enhanced
reputation as a global corporate citizen. Employees in service assignments
are schooled in how to operate in complex, multi-stakeholder environ-
ments, how to get things done with limited resources and how to navigate
another culture. Finally, local recipient organisations (clients) benefit from
improved processes, enhanced staff performance and new networks and
external relationships.
Still, questions abound as to the purposes, operations and sustainable
impact of GPB programmes. For instance, what motivates companies to
sponsor these programmes? One aim of engaging employees through CSR
is to attract and retain millennial-generation employees, many of whom
Learning objectives
By the end of this chapter, readers should be able to:
•introduce the variety and scope of corporate global pro bono (GPB)
programmes
•consider what motivates companies to invest in GPB and where they
send employees
•explain what volunteers do on GPB assignments, how they help their
clients and what they learn from the experience
•examine the impact of GPB on employees, their companies and the
clients served
•assess the limits on and issues within these programmes and how
companies might address them.
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 121 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Impacts
122
want to participate in socially responsible activities in their companies
(Bhattacharya, Sen, & Korshun, 2008; Deloitte, 2016). Are GPB programmes
all about ‘winning the war for talent’ or do they serve a broader strategic
purpose? What segments of employees participate in them?
Who runs GPB programmes in companies? A familiar critique of CSR
initiatives is that they are ‘bolt on’ rather than ‘built in’ to the business
(Grayson & Hodges, 2004). Another rap on CSR initiatives is that many of
them aim at ‘brand building’ to enhance the image of a company more so
than achieve significant social impact (Mirvis, 2011). Evidence is needed as
to what extent GPB connects with corporate strategy and whether or not
firms take seriously the social impact of their GPB programmes.
Many have called for more systematic research on employee volunteer-
ing and the impact of corporate volunteer initiatives on employees, com-
panies and the communities served (Haski-Leventhal, Roza, & Meijs, 2017;
Rodell, Breitsohl, Schröder, & Keating, 2016). Surveys of employers, such as
those by Deloitte (2017) and the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philan-
thropy (CECP and Conference Board, 2018), provide a profile of corporate
volunteering. The consultancies Taproot (2019) and Emerging World (2017)
have conducted studies specifically of companies and employees involved
in GPB efforts. This chapter adds to this database the results of longitudinal
surveys (2010–2018) from over 25 companies on their GPB programmes,
collected by PYXERA Global (2014, 2016, 2018), an international nongov-
ernmental organisation (NGO) that matches corporate employees with ser-
vice clients around the world.
Our chapter examines the characteristics of GPB programmes in operation
today, companies’ motivations for and management of these programmes,
the employee ‘experience’ on service assignments, and the reported impact
on companies, local clients and employees. We conclude the chapter by
identifying key considerations in GPB’s strategic and operational issues for
firms and managers to consider, and topics for further study.
Pro bono programmes
Companies are doing many things to engage their employees through vol-
unteerism. Recent years have seen an increase in traditional forms of corpo-
rate volunteerism – supporting employees who mentor schoolchildren, care
for the homeless, elderly or disadvantaged, participate in disaster relief,
build community playgrounds or habitat-for-humanity housing, and so on –
along with more ‘skill-based’ engagements wherein employees use their
technical and commercial know-how to address social concerns (Deloitte,
2017). Select firms have launched project-based service learning and GPB
programmes (Hills & Mahmud, 2007; Wankel & DeFillippi, 2005).
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 122 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Global pro bono service
1
123
What do we know about volunteer programmes involving service and
learning? The literature on service learning involving university- and school-
sponsored programmes reports that such experiences can stretch students’
skills and emotional intelligence, make them more aware of diversity and
social issues, and enhance their sense of civic and social responsibility
(Haski-Leventhal etal., 2019). These and other skill-building and pro-social
benefits have also been documented in service learning with corporate vol-
unteers (Grant, 2012; Muthuri, Matten, & Moon, 2009; Rodell etal., 2016).
Studies specifically concerned with GPB, though fewer in number, report
high levels of personal learning for participants and, in select cases, in their
development as globally responsible leaders (Caligiuri, Mencin, Jayne, &
Traylor, 2019; Gitsham, 2012; Mirvis, Thompson, & Marquis, 2010; Pless &
Borecká, 2014).
As for companies, the documented benefits of service learning and GPB
programmes include greater staff engagement, talent attraction and reten-
tion, and new knowledge about doing business in unfamiliar countries
(Guarnieri & Kao, 2008; MacArthur, 2014). And while many client organisa-
tions surely benefit from GPB programmes, there are corporate assessments
of GPB initiatives but no independent, multi-company findings of social
impact beyond those to be reported here.
Method: PYXERA Global surveys on GPB
In 2003, Pfizer deployed its employees into emerging markets to
strengthen health systems as part of its Global Health Fellows programme.
In 2008, IBM piloted its Corporate Service Corps, a team-based pro bono
model (Marquis & Kanter, 2009). In 2010, PYXERA Global began formally
tracking companies sponsoring GPBs by surveying 10 firms about their
motivations, operations and experiences. Assessments have continued
to date: in 2013 (26 companies), 2014 (27), 2016 (21) and 2018 (26).
These corporate surveys are typically completed by the executive in
charge of GPB. The sample of firms across each of these waves varies
to some extent (as companies new to GPB joined the study and others
discontinued their participation). Some 11 firms have participated
annually since 2014.
To gather data directly from GPB participants and clients, PYXERA
Global developed common performance indicators and to date has sur-
veyed the views of 1040 GPB volunteers, from 46 countries, and 300 GPB
client organisations. In-depth interviews of participants and case studies of
projects were conducted in select instances (Walsh & Gapeka, 2018). Find-
ings from these several investigations enable us to answer key questions
raised about GPB programmes.
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 123 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Impacts
124
Findings: programme design and participation
Companies that sponsor GPB programmes are typically large, have global
reach, employ a largely professional workforce and concentrate in sectors
like banking, high technology, finance and pharma. Yet, there is consider-
able variation in how these firms design their global service programmes –
in terms of the length and type of service assignments and the makeup and
number of participants (Pless & Borecká, 2014).
IBM’s Corporate Service Corps (CSC) is modelled on the US Peace Corps,
deploying over 500 people annually and engaging teams of volunteers in
three months of pre-work: one month in-country and two months in post-
service where they harvest insights for themselves and their business.
Ernst & Young’s fellows programme is much smaller and focuses exclusively
on improving small business in Latin America. But its volunteers spend three
months in direct service – giving them more time to deliver tangible results.
Accenture Development Partnership operates as a not-for-profit organisation
housed within a profit-making business. The parent company forgoes its
margin and covers pro bono overhead; the client pays a small fee; and the
employee takes a salary reduction while serving clients in need.
Some pharmaceutical companies have built their volunteerism on the
model of Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières). Pfizer’s
Global Health Fellows programme, for example, has the company ‘loan’
individual employees to NGOs to address local health care needs. To date,
over 230 Pfizer fellows have worked with 30 NGO partners, primarily in
Asia and Africa. By contrast, the great majority of companies deploy teams
of employees, often employees from different functions and geographies,
in GPB assignments or use a combination of team and individual service
models. Where do these volunteers serve?
Global, local and virtual
PYXERA Global’s first few surveys (2010–2014) report that participating
companies’ GPB programmes were targeted at emerging markets and
involved in situ service by employees. More recently, several companies
have adapted and applied the model to domestic service. GlaxoSmithKline
(GSK), for instance, has about half of its volunteers serve in emerging mar-
kets while the other half share their health care expertise closer to ‘home’.
The local option enables employees to serve society while still fulfilling
work, family and child-rearing responsibilities.
The 2019 survey, representing 47 programmes run by 26 companies (and
one multi-company initiative), found that over half (51%) of the programmes
continue to feature on-the-ground global service assignments. Over the past
four years, Africa, Latin America and Asia have hosted the lion’s share of
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 124 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Global pro bono service
1
125
programmes, with an uptake in global assignments to Central and Eastern
Europe and the Middle East (see Figure 8.1).
The rationale for companies focusing on emerging markets is straight-
forward. A report on IBM and Dow’s GPB service in Africa says it plainly:
The pro bono approach to accelerating market entry in Africa has two
primary benefits. First, it accelerates a dynamic understanding of the potential
in these markets, providing insight to the company as to how it might engage
the community long term with a more sustainable approach to business that
creates shared value – an element often absent from business in the African
context. At the same time, a pro bono team of consultants can enhance the
social well-being of communities where such companies seek to operate,
authentically raising the profile of the corporate brand amongst their key
stakeholders. (Litow, Hawkins, & White, 2014, p. 3)
Some 17% of the programmes studied in 2018 have a domestic focus, where
employees aid underserved domestic communities in their home nation
or region. Consider JP Morgan Chase’s investments in Detroit, Michigan.
Over the past five decades, Detroit’s population has declined significantly,
from a peak of 1.5 million in the 1970s to less than 700,000 today, caus-
ing a large drop in the city’s tax base and decimating city services. In June
2013, Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy, with estimated debts of more
than $18 billion. A year later, the city emerged from bankruptcy but nearly
80,000 buildings, or 30% of the city’s total stock, were empty.
In early 2014, JP Morgan Chase made a $100 million commitment to the
city of Detroit. The firm coupled this financial investment with sending in
employee volunteers – in the form of their Detroit Service Corps. In Novem-
ber 2014, its first team partnered with four local not-for-profit organisations
to support neighbourhood and workforce development. To date, nearly
100 employees have helped 21 Detroit organisations to improve their capa-
bilities and strengthen community outreach. The combination of financial
Figure 8.1. Regions hosting global pro bono 2013–19
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 125 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Impacts
126
support and employee assistance from Morgan Chase enabled these local
organisations to provide training and career education to nearly 15,000
Detroiters, and technical assistance to 18,000 entrepreneurs and small busi-
nesses, yielding more than 700 jobs. Recently, JP Morgan Chase offices
expanded its local GPBs and grants to Chicago, New York, London, Paris
and Hong Kong.
In addition, several companies now feature ‘virtual’ GPB programmes (13%
of total programmes) or ‘hybrids’ (19% of the total) that combine on-site and
online engagement. To illustrate, Dow’s Leadership in Action programme has
employees consult five months virtually with their client organisations, then
spend one week in-country, working with them side by side.
Participation
PYXERA Global reports a 90% increase in the number of GPB participants
in the companies it has studied from 2013 to 2018. Clearly, the idea is
spreading. But a common mistake is to assume that corporates based in the
USA and Europe are primarily sending their domestic employees on these
emerging market initiatives. On the contrary, in its first 10 years of opera-
tion, IBM engaged over 4,000 volunteers from 62 different countries. SAP’s
cumulative 1050 participants represent 56 different nationalities.
It is also apparent that GPB participants are not just young people seek-
ing to contribute to society. Indeed, one-third of participants are classified
as executives in their companies, the majority being managers or individual
contributors, and only 16% are in junior posts. Digging into the GPB partici-
pant profiles of a smaller sample of five companies, Emerging World (2017)
finds a near 50/50 split between men and women volunteers, with 43% of
the participants under the age of 35 and 57% over 35.
Most companies conduct a formal orientation session to prepare their
people for service – either in person (36%), virtually (39%) or both (14%) –
with an average of three days in length (11% do not do an orientation).
There has been an increase in the length of in-person training from 2013 to
today and, in the Emerging World sample, nearly three-quarters of volun-
teers surveyed report being well prepared for their GPB assignments.
Corporate motivations and interests
Beyond their philanthropic intent, an important motivation for GPB pro-
grammes in their first incarnation was to attract talent and engage employees.
Yet, compa nies l ike G SK a nd I BM a lso saw t he p oten t ial o f G PB a ssig n -
ments for leadership development (Mirvis etal., 2010). Pro bono activity
provides an ideal milieu for developing future leaders – it affords them
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 126 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Global pro bono service
1
127
global exposure, project-based service learning, immersion in an unfamil-
iar culture and the gratification of doing socially rewarding work (Ayas &
Mirvis, 2005; MacArthur & Bonner Ness, 2013). In its 2013 survey, PYXERA
Global found staff engagement and leadership development to be the top
motivations for GPB programmes.
Fast-forward to today and employers now report that a major reason to
invest in GPB programmes is to generate sustainable social impact (cited by
82%). Leadership development and staff satisfaction/retention (each cited
by 57%) are no longer the dominant motivators. To an extent, this may
reflect the broader integration of CSR into the business visions and strate-
gies of large companies today. Indeed, 90% of the companies surveyed in
2018 say that they align their GPB programmes to corporate strategy.
Programme scope and management
The size and scope of GPB programmes is quite variable. Some 22% of com-
panies have comparatively large programmes and send over 150 employ-
ees annually on assignments. SAP, for example, has dramatically scaled its
pro bono programme, SAP Social Sabbatical, over the past few years, from
30 employees in 2012 to 220 employees in 2018, in a combination of global
and local programmes. The programme aligns strategically with SAP’s
emphasis on social innovation (Van der Ploeg & White, 2014). SAP began
work in this space in 2013 when its employees partnered with Barclays
to host Start-up@RISE Africa where South African tech entrepreneurs par-
ticipated in training to develop prototypes using the SAP HANA Cloud®
technology. Over the next few years, teams of SAP employees were sent on
assignments to consult with innovation hubs, incubators, academic centres,
and the like, to reach many more social entrepreneurs and their enterprises.
SAP employees have, to date, assisted nearly 350 NGOs and social busi-
nesses. Closer to HQ, SAP employees staff Social Impact Labs in Berlin, Ham-
burg and other German cities for social entrepreneurs that are set to scale.
By comparison, 37% of companies send fewer than 30 volunteers on
assignment per year (15% send 31–50 volunteers; 19% send 51–100; 7%
send 101–150). Why the differences in size? SAP is big, has global reach
and has made its GPB programme a centrepiece of its leadership develop-
ment strategy and a vehicle to enhance its connections and reputation in
developing markets. Firms that operate small programmes rely on other
vehicles to develop future leaders and tend to have less business-related,
more eleemosynary motivations.
The corporate responsibility function (57%) oversees and manages GPB
service in the majority of companies, with human resources (17%) in charge
in select firms. On this count, there are no notable differences between
CSR- versus HR-led GPB programmes in terms of corporate motivation and
strategic intent.
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 127 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Impacts
128
Service focus
Ten years ago, the majority of GPB programmes were targeted at education,
with only pharmaceuticals working in health care. Recent years have seen
more diversification in the challenges addressed by company volunteers.
Figure 8.2 shows the sectors served by GPB programmes, as of 2017, focused
on the millennial development goals. And, while over 60% of programmes
concern education, large numbers of them are aimed at entrepreneurship,
health care and economic/workforce development.
Pro bono service centred on women’s empowerment (SDG 5) illustrates
how programmes can have multiple foci. PYXERA Global identified 179
distinct GPB projects, involving 150 client organisations, targeting women’s
empowerment – in 35 countries overall but with over a third based in India.
Most of these women-aimed projects are in areas of entrepreneurship and
employment (37%) or health and nutrition (36%). A joint project between
IBM and Vasavya Mahlilia Mandali (VMM), a female-led not-for-profit that
trains women to become community leaders, illustrates a dual focus. The
IBMers helped VMM draft a new strategic plan and introduced staff to tools
for stakeholder analyses, needs assessment and risk management. They
assisted VMM in launching two new social enterprises addressing maternal
and child health and in drafting grant proposals for international donors
and foundations, yielding nearly $250,000 in new funding. VMM estimates
that this will enable it to reach an additional 400,000 women and 200,000
children.
Figure 8.2. Pro bono assignments by sector
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 128 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Global pro bono service
1
129
The pro bono experience
Studies find that the benefits of participating in socially relevant activities
at work include personal satisfaction, an enriched sense of meaning and
purpose on the job and, in certain cases, the development of problem-
solving and leadership skills (Glavas, 2016; Grant, 2012; Pless & Maak,
2008). GPB adds the intrinsic challenges of working with front-line
clients to addressing, with limited resources, serious economic, social and
environmental problems.
IBMer Matt Berry faced a complex challenge on his GPB assignment:
reducing road traffic in Lagos, Nigeria, whose population will grow from
21 million today to 40 million by 2030. He reported:
This project was unlike anything I ever had a chance to work on in my career.
We had three short weeks to analyse the problem, meet with a dozen
government agencies, navigate political issues, understand the technical
solutions available, survey commuters, factor in economic and social issues,
and build a strategic transportation roadmap for one of the fastest growing
cities in the world.
Of course, challenge and the chance to be creative are earmarks of projects
of all types. The social relevance of pro bono work gives employees the
chance not only to use their talents and abilities, but also to do something
useful for society. This can be a source of meaning for socially conscious
employees and enhance their sense of purpose on the job. As another GPB
volunteer explained: ‘Plucked away from the comforts of our environment
with a zeal to share our knowledge and working practices, our quest for
giving became the prime function.’
Life on the ground
What do corporate volunteers do on their assignments? Bonnie Glick, vol-
unteering with a local NGO in Brazil through IBM’s Corporate Service
Corps (CSC), helped to develop a funding strategy for a community-based
organisation, Aprendiz, which works to keep disadvantaged youth off the
streets in the slums of São Paulo. Participants in PWC’s Ulysses programme
have, in turn, produced a professional evaluation of the growth and income-
generation potential of the eco-tourism sector in Belize; worked with the
United Nations Development Programme on the Lokoho Rural Electrifica-
tion Project in Madagascar; and contributed to the Recovery, Employment
and Stability (RESPECT) effort in conflict-ridden East Timor by setting up a
system to ensure the accountability of all stakeholders involved.
Taproot (2019) queried GPB participants on what kinds of skills they
employ on their assignments. The responses included management and
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 129 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Impacts
130
data analysis (cited by 84%), communications, technology and marketing/
branding (72% in each category), finance/accounting and strategy (68%
each), and HR and customer sales/service (60% each).
MacArthur (2014) finds that by working collaboratively within a team of
peers, and confronting clients’ complex social challenges, executives take
on new roles, experiment with new behaviours and see markets and socie-
ties from a new vantage point. As noted, the majority of companies send
employee teams on global service assignments and most of these teams are
diverse in their racial-ethnic makeup, age, geography, functional areas and
work experience. By working in a diverse team, participants learn about
the work styles and cultures of their team members. They learn, too, about
practice in functions different from their own, and junior- and senior-level
employees are able to share their respective experiences in management
and in the use of new technologies. On this count, IBM’s CSC participants
report that the opportunity to work in a diverse team was one of the most
beneficial parts of their assignment.
Programme impact
Surveying some 1040 GPB participants, from seven sponsoring companies,
PYXERA Global finds that over 90% of GPB participants acquired or improved
their skills as a result of their assignment and gained a better understanding
of the role of business in society. Other benefits cited included heightened
cultural awareness (80%), improved communication (74%) and problem-solving
(71%) skills, and greater adaptability (52%).
Several companies conduct surveys of their participants. Surveys of
alumni of GSK’s GPB PULSE programme from 2009 to 2015 found that the
vast majority had developed leadership skills and competencies (90%) and
had made positive changes in their work (83%) after returning from their
assignments. GSK also surveyed participants’ managers and colleagues on
programme impact, who reported that PULSE volunteers had developed
their interpersonal skills (94%), taken on increased leadership responsibili-
ties (71%) and brought reinvigorated energy, spirit, motivation and morale
to GSK (83%). Former PULSE programme leader, Ahisya Posner Mencin,
reports that many of its GPB participants have a ‘life-changing experience’
and return to GSK ‘as leaders with greater passion, energy, confidence,
creativity, gratitude and practical knowledge of how to do more with less’
(Kassi-Vivier, Pawlowski, & Guttery, 2012, p. 19).
In its study, Emerging World (2017) asked 688 pro bono participants
about what had happened to them after their service assignment. While
nine-in-ten continued to work for the company that had sponsored their pro
bono experience, over 75% had changed roles since their assignment. Note,
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 130 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Global pro bono service
1
131
too, that 47% moved to roles with more responsibility and 52% said that
their pro bono experience had contributed to their change in role.
Company benefits
Companies that institute GPBs benefit from staff with greater knowledge of
countries important to business expansion, and they often see an increase in
staff retention and performance. Companies also benefit from an enhanced
reputation in those countries where programmes are implemented – which
improves their ability to win new business – and from being seen world-
wide as a global corporate citizen.
Pfizer and GSK, for instance, report that their ‘license to operate’ in sev-
eral African countries has improved due to relationships developed with
governments, universities and throughout the health care sector. IBM’s work
in Calabar, capital of the Cross River State in Nigeria, was at the request of
and in partnership with Governor Liyel Imoke. One project funded by the
World Bank provided support to pregnant women and children under 5.
Governor Imoke was so impressed by the work that he personally asked
IBM to continue in a commercial way as project managers. This led to a
$1.2m services deal – IBM’s first in West Africa.
Beyond the immediate rewards, companies also cite the ‘social capital’
that flows from their global service. Corporate websites featuring blog
postings and videos produced by volunteers tackling significant economic,
social and environmental problems around the world, instil a sense of pride
in the workforce overall and also attract the interest of job candidates,
students and the media. Meanwhile, programme alumni often stay in touch
with one another and with their clients via email and Skype chats.
Social impact
Companies are increasingly interested in assessing the social impact of their
GPB. PYXERA Global’s surveys show that 97% of some 300 GPB clients
surveyed are satisfied with their programme, and 92% say that GPB partici-
pants served as a ‘change agent’ for their organisation. Local organisations
report operational benefits in areas of stakeholder management, leadership
and governance, marketing and external relationships, and training and
development. In addition, clients testify to benefits from improved pro-
cesses and enhanced staff performance yielding increased revenues. GPB
services received have been valued at over $7.5 million, with 2,000 client
organisation staff helped by programmes and over 57 million touched by
the work of GPB service teams (see Figure 8.3).
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 131 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Impacts
132
As a small example, Becton, Dickinson, and Company (BD) sent 13 com-
pany employees, in partnership with Heart to Heart International, a medi-
cal aid humanitarian organisation, to earthquake-devastated Haiti. The BD
volunteers and partners worked with the National Lab of Haiti to devise a
‘lab in a box’ for clinics in rural areas to increase access to quality care, and
created patient education materials on proper hygiene, nutrition and sexu-
ally transmitted diseases to help reduce the spread of disease.
On a larger scale, John Deere’s pro bono morphed into a long-term partner-
ship with a community in India. The Joint Initiative for Village Advancement
(JIVA) programme, supported by Deere’s Foundation in three rural villages
of the Rajasthan, takes an integrated approach to community development.
Deere employees run ‘train the trainer’ programmes to enable farmers to
spread knowledge across villages, to teach and mentor in village schools and
to work hand in hand with locals on infrastructure development, including
on the construction of toilets, wash basins and the like. The effort is managed
through a strategic plan, replete with targets and key performance indicators
(KPIs) for both the villagers and Deere’s pro bono contributors.
Implications for practice
Several features of GPB differentiate it from traditional corporate volunteer
programmes and require thoughtful consideration in design and operation.
On this count, companies report several ‘success factors’ in meeting pro
bono project objectives, as follows.
Figure 8.3. Client impact of global pro bono programmes
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 132 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Global pro bono service
1
133
Partnering
Few firms have the appropriate staff, resources and know-how to operate
in this space on their own and, in any case, may lack legitimacy with local
communities to do so. Indeed, PYXERA Global finds that over 80% of com-
panies work with an NGO implementing partner that helps to identify cli-
ent organisations, establish the scope of work, place employees and handle
logistics. On this count, a study by Austin and colleagues (2005) finds NGOs
to be far more knowledgeable about social needs and more effective at
planning social action than businesses. Partnering with NGOs also eases a
company’s access to foreign governments and social service organisations
in developing countries (Mirvis & Googins, 2018a).
Selection
Firms use two methods to recruit and select volunteers. Nearly half rely
on supervisor nominations to identify GPB candidates, while the rest call
for self-nominations or depend on recommendations from their talent
development or HR functions. Typically, candidates either complete a survey
or submit an essay expressing their interest in and aim for GPB service.
Many companies follow up applications with a telephone (44%) or in-person
(26%) interview. Reported selection criteria include: (1) a strong track
record within the company; (2) high potential for leadership advancement;
(3) personal motivation, flexibility, resilience and a demonstrated service
ethic; and (4) project-relevant technical, managerial or cross-cultural skills.
The selection process can be daunting. For example, when IBM launched
its CSC in 2008, it expected 500 applications and received 1000. A few
years later, it got over 30,000 applications, with the largest number from its
employees in Asia.
Strategic alignment
We have seen the increased connection of GPB programmes to company
strategy. This is likely a sign that more firms are engaged in strategic philan-
thropy and seek business benefits from their social investments (Porter &
Kramer, 2006, 2011). As evidence of this, survey analysis finds that compa-
nies who take a strategic approach to GPB are more likely to measure their
business benefits than firms who don’t take this approach. Second, there is
increased emphasis on achieving ‘sustainable social impact’ and many more
companies are measuring the social impact of GPB programmes. This may
indicate that companies are taking CSR more seriously today and giving
attention to measurement and accountability concerning the results of their
social investments (Henderson, 2018).
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 133 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Impacts
134
Positioning
We have seen how GPB is housed within the corporate responsibility or
HR functions of most companies surveyed. The attendant risk is that it
can be marginalised from the mainstream business. To counter this, PYX-
ERA Global found (in 2018) that many GPB programme heads are actively
engaged with ‘internal stakeholders’ in their companies, including business
units, marketing and R&D. Interestingly, survey analyses show that GPB
programmes that are linked to corporate strategy feature greater alignment
and collaboration between corporate CSR, HR, talent development, market-
ing/communication and business units. In addition, the survey finds that
GPB programmes get top-level support via either the CEO (52%), a vice-
president (18%) or others in the C-suite (26%). This is important not only for
the success of GPB programmes but also to employee volunteers. On this
point, Emerging World (2017) finds that participants report having learned
more from GPB programmes championed by top management (versus
those not championed by them) and being more apt to support corporate
efforts to act as a ‘force for good’.
Issues and areas for improvement
What else should companies consider when undertaking GPB programmes?
One criticism of such programmes is that corporate teams parachute in to
help clients solve social problems and then, in short order, return to their
business – leaving the clients to handle any implementation challenges on
their own. In response, companies today are increasing the length of their
services assignments, with some 46% having employees serve three weeks
or more – a substantial increase on two years ago when only 18% featured
assignments of three weeks or more. Furthermore, many GPB teams stay
in touch with their clients through virtual coaching and some companies
send clients a subsequent pro bono team to ‘pick up the ball’. At present,
however, there has been no systematic study of how the length of GPB
assignments, or the addition of virtual coaching or follow-up teams, relates
to improvements in client organisations – a topic for future research.
Harvesting lessons
Another critique is that relatively few companies conduct a structured
debriefing of participants on completion of their GPB assignment. This
makes the harvesting of lessons learned and their application to business
needs episodic and haphazard. To illustrate, Emerging World reports that,
although 92% of the GPB participants it surveyed say that they acquired
new knowledge and skills from their assignment, only 56% felt they had
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 134 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Global pro bono service
1
135
made a positive business impact on their organisation as a result of their
insights and learning.
GSK is tackling this problem in its revamped GPB programme. Histori-
cally, GSK Pulse volunteers were given a briefing, before embarking on their
assignment, that covered only the logistics of their placement, methods of
community support and areas for personal development. In its new version,
Pulse+ TRACK, volunteers are educated on GSK’s strategic priorities by vari-
ous business leaders before they go into the field, and are encouraged to
think of themselves as intrapreneurs and to be on the lookout for ideas that
may apply to company priorities. Upon their return, they are expected to
brief the management team on what they learned and propose innovative
new ways of doing things (GSK, 2015).
Employee learning
While employees’ passion for and learning from GPB work is well
documented, it is uncertain how much of this enthusiasm and learning
is retained once they return to their work ‘cubicles’. To address this
matter, Merck has partnered with Cornell University to develop an action
learning programme for its GPB fellows, based on four characteristics
of entrepreneurial leadership: curiosity, commitment, collaboration and
connectivity. Before their assignment, Merck participants are given reading
tasks and must complete a leadership self-assessment and participate in an
interactive two-day workshop focused on team development and the setting
of personal leadership goals. Halfway through the assignment, a check-in
provides participants with the opportunity to self-reflect, revisit their goals
and consider lessons learned and how these could benefit the company.
On return to Merck, their three-month assignment complete, participants
attend two follow-up discussion sessions, one after 90 days and the other
after six months, to mark progress against their goals and share learning
across the alumni community.
In other companies, GPB programme alumni have formed communities
of practice where they relive their volunteer experience and share day-to-
day challenges on the job. It seems that many companies, too, are making
use of alumni to support their GPB efforts overall. Of the companies
surveyed, over half have alumni serve as mentors to GPB participants and
nearly as many assist in participant training. Roughly 30% of firms engage
alumni in participant selection.
Innovation and continuous improvement
Recent years have seen innovations in GPB programmes. To expand oppor-
tunities, reduce costs and include those who, due to personal or family
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 135 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Impacts
136
responsibilities, are unable to travel abroad, several companies have also
set up ‘local’ pro bono service options so that employees can serve in-
country. SAP, which sponsors both global and local GPB programmes, finds
that ratings of employee and client satisfaction are comparable in the two
kinds of programmes. Certainly, the local option has increased substantially
the number of SAP’s GPB volunteers. Still, we need to know more about
the comparative advantages and disadvantages of global versus local pro-
grammes and of virtual volunteering.
Several companies have joined forces to form multi-company GPB teams.
IBM, for example, has invited a number of its clients, including FedEx, John
Deere and JP Morgan Chase, to collaborate and join IBM CSC teams. Global
Health Corporate Champions (GHCC) – developed by USAID, the Public
Health Institute and PYXERA Global – is a GPB programme that includes
employee volunteers from PIMCO, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Dow
Chemical Company, SAP and WE Communications. In 2016 and 2017, this
diverse group of leaders leveraged their business and operational expertise
on projects related to clean water and sanitation, food and nutrition, security,
health system strengthening and/or gender inclusion and empowerment in
Ghana, Rwanda and Senegal.
What are the benefits of this multi-company model? Asiala (2018) reports
that multi-company participants not only learned from their engagements
with clients but also from their interactions with peers. As one manager
from Dow reports:
Another important aspect … was the corporate culture learning. I really want
to stress this, because the culture between Dow, PIMCO, and PwC was so
obviously different. I saw strengths in Dow that clearly came out, but I also
saw strengths in those other corporate cultures, for which I now have new
appreciation and respect.
Conclusion
This chapter has shown how GPB programmes have taken hold in
select global companies over the past decade or so, have become more
fully integrated into the strategy and operations of these firms, and
produced tangible benefits for employees, companies and the clients
served. Nonetheless, comparatively few large companies are sponsoring
GPB programmes and many run small programmes with fewer than
50 volunteers annually. This reminds us that the ‘market for virtue’ varies
across firms and industries as well as employment markets (Vogel, 2006).
The firms hosting GPB programmes studied here are all global, employ a
largely professional workforce and operate in competitive talent markets
(in professional services, IT and pharma who have competitors that feature
GPB programmes). Certainly, these factors are relevant for executives to
consider when judging whether or not GPB is right for their firm.
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 136 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Global pro bono service
1
137
There are, of course, many other ways to engage employees in socially
relevant service, including on the job (Mirvis, 2012). Growing numbers of
employees today are involved in sustainable supply chain management,
cause-related marketing and green business initiatives. That said, employee
volunteerism in the USA, Australia and other nations has historic roots.
Recognition that many more employees today want to be engaged in the
CSR efforts of their companies is a key driver in the increased emphasis
given to volunteerism generally and to the addition of local and virtual GPB
programmes in the firms studied here. Beyond this, there are many ways
of combining GPB-type service and learning with the on-boarding of new
employees, with corporate education programmes and even with develop-
ing new strategies, products and services.
Mirvis and Googins (2018b) contrast the strengths and weaknesses of
GPB programmes with other types of engagement platforms in companies,
including in employee innovation contests and hackathons, partnerships with
social entrepreneurs and company-wide social innovation efforts. Certainly,
companies have a choice about how to engage their employees in socially
meaningful and strategically relevant work. We see from the data reported
here that there is a strong business case for investing in GPB, but how does
it compare with other worthwhile ways to engage employees in CSR?
Questions for students
1. Have you ever had an extended volunteer experience? How did it
contribute to your development as a leader?
2. Why are companies sending volunteers to emerging markets and
underserved communities in their home country? Consider the ben-
efits but also the expense and risks!
3. Pick a big company you are interested in. Would you recommend it
launch a GPB programme? What would be its aims, who should par-
ticipate and where would volunteers serve?
4. Some argue that the USA and other countries should have national
service programmes where high school graduates contribute to society
before going on to work or college. What do you think about this idea?
References
Asiala, L. (2018). Taking global pro bono to the next level. Retrieved from
www.PYXERAglobal.org/taking-global-pro-bono-next-level.
Austin, J., Leonard, H., Reficco, E., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship:
It’s for corporations, too. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New
paradigms of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 137 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Impacts
138
Ayas, K., & Mirvis, P. H. (2005). Educating managers through service learning
projects. In C. Wankel & R. DeFillippi (Eds.), Educating managers through real
world projects. Greenwich: IAP.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2008). Using corporate social
responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2),
37–44.
Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., Jayne, B. & Traylor, A. (2019). Developing cross-cultural
competencies through international corporate volunteerism. Journal of World
Business, 54(1), 14–23.
Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Win–win–win: The influence of
company sponsored volunteerism programs on employees, NGOs, and
business units. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 825–860.
CECP and Conference Board (2018). Giving in numbers. Retrieved from
http://cecp.co/home/resources/giving-in-numbers.
Deloitte (2016). The 2016 Deloitte millennial survey: Winning over the next
generation of leaders. Retrieved from www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/
global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-millenial-survey-2016-exec-summary.pdf.
Deloitte (2017). Volunteerism survey. Retrieved from www2.deloitte.com/content/
dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/about-deloitte/us-2017-deloitte-volunteerism-
survey.pdf.
Emerging World (2017). 2017 CISL impact benchmark study. Retrieved from www.
emergingworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2017-cisl-impact-benchmark-
study-443.pdf.
Gitsham, M. (2012). Experiential learning for leadership and sustainability at IBM
and HSBC. Journal of Management Development, 31(3), 298–307.
Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement:
Enabling employees to employ more of their whole selves at work. Frontiers
in Psychology, 7, 796. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00796.
Grant, A. M. (2012). Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained
employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management
Review, 37(4), 589–615.
Grayson, D., & Hodges, A. (2004). Corporate social opportunity! 7 steps to make
corporate social responsibility work for your business. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
GSK (2015). Intrapreneurship: Keeping our fingers on the PULSE. Retrieved from
www.gsk.com/en-gb/responsibility/our-people/employee-engagement/
intrapreneurship-keeping-our-fingers-on-the-pulse.
Guarnieri, R., & Kao, T. (2008). Leadership and CSR – a perfect match: How top
companies for leaders utilize CSR as a competitive advantage. People and
Strategy, 31(3), 34–41.
Haski-Leventhal, D., Paull, M., Young, S., MacCallum, J., Holmes, K., Omari, M.,
Scott, R., & Alony, I. (2019). The multidimensional benefits of university
student volunteering: Psychological contract, expectations, and outcomes.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(1), 113–133.
Haski-Leventhal, D., Roza, L., & Meijs, L. C. (2017). Congruence in corporate social
responsibility: Connecting the identity and behavior of employers and
employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 35–51.
Henderson, R. M. (2018). More and more CEOs are taking their social
responsibility seriously. Harvard Business Review, 12, 2–5.
Hills, G., & Mahmud, A. (2007). Volunteering for impact: Best practices in
international corporate volunteering. Boston, MA: FSG Social Impact Advisors.
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 138 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Global pro bono service
1
139
Kassi-Vivier, Y., Pawlowski, J., & Guttery, C. (2012). Demonstrating the business
value of pro bono service. Taproot Foundation and Pro Bono Lab.
Litow, S., Hawkins, N. & White, D. (2014). Accelerating market entry in Africa.
Retrieved from www.PYXERAglobal.org/white-paper-accelerating-market-
entry-africa.
MacArthur, A. (2014). The state of global pro bono. Retrieved from www.conference-
board.org/retrievefile.cfm?filename=TCB-GT-V1N8-State_of_Global_Pro_Bono1.
pdf&type=subsite.
MacArthur, A., & Bonner Ness, A. (2013). Skills-based volunteering: The new
executive training ground. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/skills_based_volunteering_the_new_executive_
training_ground#.
Marquis, C., & Kanter, R. M. (2009). IBM: The corporate service corps. Harvard
Business School Case, No. 409-106. Retrieved from www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/
item.aspx?num=37178.
Mirvis, P. (2011). Reputation and corporate social responsibility: A global view. In
G. Martin, C. Cooper, & R. Burke (Eds.), Corporate reputation: Managing
threats and opportunities. London: Gower.
Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee engagement and CSR: Transactional, relational, and
developmental approaches. California Management Review, 54(4), 93–117.
Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2018a). Catalyzing social entrepreneurship in Africa:
Roles for Western universities, NGOs and corporations. Africa Journal of
Management, 4(1), 57–83.
Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2018b). Engaging employees as social innovators.
California Management Review, 60(4), 25–50.
Mirvis, P., Thompson, K., & Gohring, J. (2012). Toward next-generation leadership:
Global service. Leader to Leader, 2012, 20–26.
Mirvis, P., Thompson, K., & Marquis, C. (2010). Preparing next generation
business leaders. In R. Burke & M. Rothstein (Eds.), Self-management and
leadership development. Cheltenham, UK: Edgar Elgar.
Muthuri, J. N., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2009). Employee volunteering and social
capital: Contributions to corporate social responsibility. British Journal of
Management, 20(1), 75–89.
Pless, N. M., & Borecká, M. (2014). Comparative analysis of international service
learning programs. Journal of Management Development, 33(6), 526–550.
Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2008). Responsible leaders as agents of world benefit:
Learnings from ‘Project Ulysses’. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 59–71.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing global leaders through
international service learning programs: The Ulysses experience. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 237–260.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage
and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business
Review, January–February, 1–17.
PYXERA Global (2014). Benchmarking survey – Corporate global pro bono: State
of the practice. Retrieved from www.pyxeraglobal.org/corporate-global-pro-bono-
state-practice.
PYXERA Global (2016). Global pro bono: State of practice. Report on the 7th Global
Pro Bono Benchmarking Survey. Retrieved from www.PYXERAglobal.org/
global-pro-bono-state-practice-survey-2017.
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 139 8/17/20 7:25 AM
Impacts
140
PYXERA Global (2018). Global pro bono: State of practice. Retrieved from www.
pyxeraglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/PYXERAGlobal_8thGlobalProBono_
StateofthePracticeReport.pdf.
Rodell, J. B., Breitsohl, H., Schröder, M., & Keating, D. J. (2016). Employee
volunteering: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management,
42(1), 55–84.
Taproot (2019). State of pro bono. Retrieved from https://k1sxsm5s8y-flywheel.
netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Taproot_State_of_ProBono_Corp.pdf.
Van der Ploeg, A., & White, D. (2014). Social sabbaticals and the new face of
leadership. Stanford Innovation Review. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/
entry/social_sabbaticals_and_the_new_face_of_leadership.
Voge l, D. (2006). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social
responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Walsh, M., & Gapeka, T. (2018). Benchmarking global pro bono’s impact on
investment. Retrieved from www.pyxeraglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/
CPICaseStudies_03.pdf.
Wankel, C., & DeFillippi, R. (Eds.) (2005). Educating managers through real world
projects. Greenwich, CT: IAP.
BK-SAGE-HASKI-200125.indb 140 8/17/20 7:25 AM
