1. © 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Employee Engagement Today: Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition PANELISTS Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D. Associate Professor Organizational Studies. Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll School of Management at Boston College Margaret Coady and MODERATOR Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Kathleen Mayglothling Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation

2. SOURCE: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative, International Telecommunication Union (ITU), US Chamber of Commerce, organization website Ten years ago, who would have guessed? Cellular-telephone adoption increase from 738 million in 2000 to over 6 billion today Greenpeace partners with multiple multi-national corporations Investments in renewable energy technologies overtake investments in fossil fuel technologies Warren Buffet and Bill Gates lead the world in philanthropy

3. Unscientific look at changes in corporate giving: Local, reactive, heartstrings-driven  Give if asked; “good neighbor” giving  Give to causes important to senior leaders  Intentionally NOT strategic or connected to the business for fear of a backlash Visible, proactive  See other companies begin to get credit  Grants are proactive and “make sense”  Better measurement of inputs Strategic, aligned, beyond cash  Accept very few unsolicited grantee proposals  Giving as a “portfolio” of expectations to manage  Co-design initiatives with nonprofit partners  Greater attention to employee engagement

4. © 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Session Objectives  Trends in employee engagement  How corporations are defining the value proposition for employee engagement internally and externally  Pertinent data to help build and define value of employee engagement  How corporations and their employees identify success in employee engagement In a fast-changing environment, let’s examine:

5. © 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Employee Engagement Today: Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition PANELISTS Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D. Associate Professor Organizational Studies. Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll School of Management at Boston College Margaret Coady and MODERATOR Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Kathleen Mayglothling Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation

6. Employee Engagement Charities at Work Summit Bradley Googins PhD Professor Management and Organization Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Boston College April 2011

7. Engaging Employees Typical Companies Top Companies

8. Levels of Engagement: LOW and getting LOWER…. Source: Gallup Employee Engagement Index

9. What is the meaning of CSR? Source: Fleishman Hillard/National Consumers League study, “Rethinking Corporate Social Responsibility”

10. Corporate Citizenship US Consumers’ Perspective – What matters most 1.Values and treats employees well and fairly 2.Executives and business practices are ethical, honest, open and transparent 3.Authenticity 4.Goes beyond what is required to provide safe, healthy and reliable products and services 5.Listens to consumer, customer and community input when making business decisions 6.Active and involved in the communities where it does business Committed to corporate social responsibility, sustainability, economic opportunity, environmental stewardship, etc. 7.Donates or invests its fair share of profits, goods or services to benefit others Source: Golin Harris Corporate Citizenship Gets Down to Business 2006

11. Relevance of Corporate Citizenship: Employees in High versus Low CC Firms Sirota Survey Intelligence, 2007

12. 12 The Corporate Handprint Philip Mirvis & Bradley Googins

13. Green--Environment Reduce/Minimize Do Less Harm Reactive Report Green is Gold! Social & Ecological Increase/Maximize Do More Good Pro-Active Reach Out Blue is too— for business & society! Corporate Footprint Corporate Handprint

14. Reducing the Corporate Footprint is Good, but…. Can’t Your Company do Better?

15. PURPOSE PRODUCTS PROSPERITY PLANET PEOPLE The Corporate Handprint

16. Who am I? Who am I to become? Self-in-Life Roles Self-in-the- World Self-in-Work Roles Self-in- Affinities Employee Engagement Relational Model: Engaging the ‘Whole Person’ Across Identity Spheres

17. Millennial Generation on Corporate Citizenship – Three of four young people want to work for a company that “cares about how it impacts and contributes to society.” Nearly seven-in-ten say that they are aware of their employer’s commitment to social/environmental causes and 65 percent say that their employer’s social/environmental activities make them feel loyal to their company. (Source: The Cone Millennial Cause Study). – How many students believe that business should work toward the betterment of society? Over 80 percent of the members (and 66% of nonmembers). How many agree business is currently working for the betterment of society? Some 18 percent of members (and 24% who are not members). Corporate citizenship matters to tomorrow’s business leaders. (Source: Net Impact)

18. © 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Employee Engagement Today: Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition PANELISTS Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D. Associate Professor Organizational Studies. Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll School of Management at Boston College Margaret Coady and MODERATOR Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Kathleen Mayglothling Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation

19. © 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Introduction to CECP Who We Are  Nonprofit organization founded in 1999.  The only international forum of business CEOs and chairpersons with an agenda exclusively focused on corporate philanthropy. What We Believe  Philanthropy is a long-term investment  Executive leadership is essential  Corporations have unique resources Who is Engaged  Over 175 CEOs and Chairpersons  Companies from each industry sector  Companies represent over 40% of all corporate giving in the United States Our Strategic Focus  Represent the CEO voice.  Bring business discipline to corporate philanthropy.  Own the standard on philanthropy practice and measurement. “I helped to start CECP with the belief that corporate America could be a force for good in society.” - Paul Newman

20. © 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy The CEO Perspective “When considering a change in your company’s contributions, which constituency most influences your decision?”

21. © 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Measuring the Value of Corporate Philanthropy Between Grant Recipients and Giving Officers How to assess whether grantees are achieving the intended results How to estimate a "return on investment" (ROI) numeric for comparing and/or aggregating the effectiveness across different grants in achieving social results. Between the Giving Officers and the CEO "business case" and demonstrate how supporting the philanthropic initiative will be valuable to business. Between the CEO and the Investor Community Investors want assurance that spending on corporate philanthropy enhances (or at least does not diminish) shareholder value. Concurrently, a number of investors ask that the companies in which they invest demonstrate greater philanthropic leadership and social responsibility.

22. © 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Measuring the Value of Corporate Philanthropy Enhance employee engagement. Companies engage employees through group volunteer programs and awareness of their philanthropic initiatives, which raise employee motivation, productivity, and a sense of identification with the organization. Build customer loyalty. Especially in consumer-oriented industries, a company’s commitment to communities and certain philanthropic causes enhances brand perception, customer loyalty, repeat business, and word-of-mouth promotion. Manage downside risks to the company’s reputation. Philanthropic initiatives provide companies with a fresh opportunity to prioritize and address stakeholder risks, i.e., ways in which the company may not be meeting public expectations. Contribute to business innovation and growth opportunities. Philanthropy also provides access to new relationships and opportunities whereby the company can find, test, and demonstrate new ideas, technologies, and products.

23. © 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Measuring the Value of Corporate Philanthropy CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY ACTIVITIES e.g.: grants and employee volunteer programs EMLOYEE NEEDS FULFILLED Self-enhancement Work-life integration Reputational shield Bridge to company Collective self-esteem INTERMEDIATE OUTCOME TO BE TARGETED AND MEASURED EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES Sense of organizational identification BUSINESS IMPACT Increased output, sales, and productivity JOB-RELATED BEHAVIORS Reduced absenteeism Retention Efficiency Cooperative behaviors Work effort Advocacy OTHER MODERATING FACTORS Extrinsic incentives, e.g. compensation and performance-linked rewards Employee characteristics, e.g. tenure and training Employee perception of HR practices, work environment, management, and company capabilities Source: Adapted from Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S. & Korschun, D. (2008) and Bartel, C. (2001).

24. © 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Measuring the Value of Corporate Philanthropy Employee Attitude or Job Behavior ReferencesMetrics and Survey Instruments Collective self-esteemLuhtanen & Crocker (1992). Survey completed by employees with eight-item scale to reflect a member’s personal evaluation of the group (private collective self-esteem), as well as his or her assessment of how non-members evaluate the group (public collective self- esteem): 1.I feel good about working for X. 2.I often regret that I work for X. 3.Overall, I often feel that working for X is not worthwhile. 4.In general, I am glad to be an employee of X. 5.Overall, X is considered a good company by others. 6.In general, others respect what X stands for. 7.Most people consider X, on average, to be less effective than other companies. 8.In general, others think that X is not a good company to work for. Co-operative behaviorsMcAllister (1995).Survey completed by managers with ten-item scale to reflect affiliation, co- operation, and assistant co-operation behaviors: 1.Takes time to listen to other people’s problems and worries. 2.Rarely takes a personal interest in others. 3.Frequently does something extra that won’t be rewarded, but which makes co-operative efforts with others more productive. 4.Passes on information that might be useful to others. 5.Willingly helps others, even at some cost to personal productivity. 6.Rarely takes others’ needs/feelings into account when making decisions that affect others. 7.Tries not to make things more difficult for others at work. 8.Goes out of his/her way to help co-workers with difficult assignments. 9.Offers to help others who have heavy workloads. 10.Covers for absent co-workers. METRICS & SURVEY INSTRUMENTS IN THE REPORT

25. 25 Overview of Matching Gifts 94% of companies offered at least one matching gift program (N=170). 57% of companies increased matching contributions from 2009 to 2010 (N=133). $1.70 million median matching gift contributions in 2010 (N=133).

26. 26 Note: Telecom. Services industry not detailed due to small sample size Matching Gift Allocations Matching Gifts as Percentage of Cash Giving, Medians, 2010

27. 27 Volunteer Programs, 2010 Paid-Release Time and Outside-Company-Time

28. 28 Employee Volunteer Program Offerings, 2010

29. 29 Examples of Paid-Release Time Program Policies SPECIALIZED Policy: Manager approval for paid-release time requests Offering different opportunities by division or region Restricting paid-time off to company-wide days of service Restricting paid-time off to employees participating in team grant activities Restricting paid-time off to employee volunteer programs specifically run by the company. Offering fellowship or sabbatical options. HOURLY Policy: Hours per year: 8 hours, 10 hours, 12 hours, 16 hours, 20 hours, 24 hours, 40 hours Hours per month: 4 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours DAY Policy: Days per year: 1 day per year, 2 days per year, 3 days per year, 5 days per year, 6 days per year, and 3-6 month sabbaticals.

30. 30 Data Collection Happening Now! Giving in Numbers Includes findings on: Giving and the Economy Benchmarking Tables Giving by Program Area Giving by Motivation Employee Volunteerism Matching Gifts International Giving Corporate Foundations Giving by Gender and Ethnicity Management & Program Structures Since 2001, the Giving in Numbers report has provided thorough analysis and comprehensive benchmarking data for corporate philanthropy professionals seeking to assess the scope of their contributions initiatives.Giving in Numbers Free download: CorporatePhilanthropy.org

31. © 2012, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Employee Engagement Today: Defining and Declaring the Value Proposition PANELISTS Bradley K. Googins, Ph.D. Associate Professor Organizational Studies. Former Executive Director Center for Corporate Citizenship Carroll School of Management at Boston College Margaret Coady and MODERATOR Director, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy Kathleen Mayglothling Program Manager, Employee Programs, GE Foundation

32. GE Employee Engagement: GE Foundation Matching Gifts Kathleen Mayglothling Program Manager Charities at Work Summit April 3, 2012

33. GE Foundation Matching Gifts Page 33 “I find out what the world needs, then I proceed to invent it.” – Thomas Edison

34. GE Foundation Matching Gifts Page 34 GE Today GE works on things that matter. The best people & the best technologies taking on the toughest challenges. Finding solutions in energy, health & home, transportation & finance. Building, powering, moving and curing the world. Not just imagining. Doing. GE works.

35. GE Foundation Matching Gifts Page 35 Strong, sustained economic performance Rigorous compliance - financial & legal rules Ethical actions, beyond formal requirements Make money Make it ethically Make a difference GE’s Citizenship Framework Making an Impact in Communities Around the World Citizenship for GE is not just about “giving back” but about enabling positive changes around the world… a full-time commitment with the same goals, strategies & accountabilities that drive business.

36. GE Foundation Matching Gifts Page 36 Communities Town Neighbors Local Infrastructure GE Company/Foundation Matching Gifts United Way GE Volunteers GE People Contributions Time Expertise The Goal: To build deep and positive relationships where GE people live and work Community Engagement Education Environment Humanitarian Relief Health The Opportunity: GE and its employees & retirees help meet community needs through a variety of resources & skills.

37. GE Foundation Matching Gifts Page 37 Supporting GE employees and retirees in their personal philanthropy and volunteerism Time, Talent, Treasure Matching Gifts 1:1 match of employee & retiree contributions to eligible charities Includes broad variety of areas; available year-round 2011 Total: $70M United Way Giving Campaigns Supports UW & other charities with pledges, volunteers, & supplies Additional 50% contribution from GE Foundation to local UWs 2011 Total: $26M GE Volunteers Employees & retirees donate time & effort towards initiatives in their local communities. 80 year+ tradition 220+ Volunteers Councils in 51 countries organize over 6,200 projects annually 1.3M volunteer hours per year

38. GE Foundation Matching Gifts Page 38 Matching Gifts Created by GE “The employer matching gift program was the brainchild of Philip Reed, chair of the General Electric Board of Directors, who wanted to encourage GE employees to contribute to their alma maters. Reed believed the incentive to contribute was greater if the company matched the employee’s gift.” Since the launch in 1954, many others have followed suit and $2B has been contributed by individuals and their employers to education alone. * Source: HEP Data

39. GE Foundation Matching Gifts Page 39 FSG Analysis  Retirees claim a large portion of matching funds, primarily for Higher Education institutions  Cumbersome process on community side deters employees and broader participation  High matching limits favor officers, directors, retirees Are these the results we seek? “The only value in employee engagement efforts lies in the actions taken once the data has been collected and analyzed.” Bersin & Associates Research Report Employee Engagement: A changing marketplace (Sept. 2010)

40. GE Foundation Matching Gifts Page 40 Matching Gifts – Then & Now 1954 5,234 $200K 359 4,928 $1,000 2004 32,941 $18M 1,781 13,927 $50,000 2011 109,948 $35M 13,360 30,194 $50,000 Gifts Registered (#) Total Matched ($) Charity Participants (#) GE Participants (#) Annual Max per person ($) Substantial increases across the board, particularly following the 2005 Program enhancements

41. GE Foundation Matching Gifts Page 41 The Value Proposition GE Foundation has matched more than $460M Encourages giving to many organizations and causes Empowers employees & retirees to direct GE’s charitable giving Helps strengthen recipient charities and institutions Builds internal reputation and goodwill Demonstrates Company support of employee & retiree interests Employee Concerns GE Fdn. $$ Matching Gifts

42. GE Foundation Matching Gifts Page 42 Impact Examples Employee Responses Partnerships–More than Just $$ GE Aviation & the Lynn Shelter Association (Mass.): 250 volunteers donated 1,500 hours to rehab 10 apartments, build a library & computer center, & redo the lighting. Others have donated professional skills, such as IT employees providing computer support. President Bill Hayes said, "Since GE has gotten involved, the Association has been on an upswing. It has become highly respected in the community." African American Forum (AAF) at GE Healthcare: conducted a food drive across the country, collecting more than 2,000 pounds of food for multiple charities. “It is great to know that GE is still capable to support and help needed families during challenging times (financial crises all over the world).” “The 2:1 is a great program and I am proud to be associated with a Company that believes in taking the extra step to support those of us who engage in philanthropic activities.” “I was so pleased to tell my local shelter that GE would double my donation. This encouraged me to give more.” Special Food & Shelter 2:1 Matching Gifts

43. 43 Discussion Questions: What does successful engagement look like to you? What challenges have you overcome or continue to face in engaging employees? What are your learning objectives for this conference?