This summary post appears courtesy of the study’s author Dr. Marcia DiStaso at the University of Florida. This post is a preview based on the findings presented at the International PR Research Conference on March 11, 2017.
At the 2016 Page Society Annual Conference, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, asked, “if a company can’t explain its purpose, then what’s the purpose of that company?”
The Page Society Annual Conference is sponsored by the Arthur W. Page Society. The Page Society is a professional association for senior public relations and corporate communications executives. The society consists of several committees, one of which is the Page Society Committee on Purpose.
Regarding Polman’s earlier question, the Page Society Committee on Purpose says social purpose asks companies why they exist and what value they create for customers, shareholders, employees and society as a whole. Dr. Marcia W. DiStaso, University of Florida and IPR Board Member, conducted a survey with Page Society members in 2016 and found 60 percent of members felt their organizations had a purpose that extended beyond business, and 84 percent felt organizations have an obligation to help solve society’s problems.
It was this survey that led Dr. DiStaso to try to find trends in companies that run with purpose. “Trends in Purpose: How Companies are Changing the World by Doing Good” surveys 50 companies from around the world that are leading with a purpose and the trends among those companies. All 50 companies were included on Fortune’s 2016 Change the World List.
Of the 22 companies surveyed in this study, nearly half came from the United States. The Netherlands was second on the list, with three companies, and India, Japan and the United Kingdom had two each. Ghana, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, the Philippines, Singapore, Sweden and Switzerland rounded out the study with one company each.
The majority of these 50 companies (28 percent) came from the industrial sector. The fewest (2 percent) came from the energy sector.
In terms of the impact sector, meaning, in what areas do the companies “do good,” 33 percent of the companies focused on the economic opportunity/financial inclusion sector, or the environmental impact sector. On the other hand, just 4 percent of the companies focused on doing good in the education/discovery or human rights and social justice sector.
Looking at the characteristics of the companies, more than 85 percent were public, and more than 95 percent had male CEOs as opposed to female. The companies had an average of 186,341 employees each. The range in company employees was very large, from Walmart with more than 2 million employees, to Fibria Celulose (a paper company in Brazil) with fewer than 5,000.
Moving on to financial characteristics, the mean revenue of all the companies was around $47 million, but the range in revenue was, once again, quite large, from Walmart with over $480 million in revenue, to BTPN (a bank in Indonesia), with just about $1 million in revenue.
On the other hand, the profits did not have as big of a range. Gilead Sciences led the pack with about $18 million in revenue, and GE sat in last place with a deficit of about $6 million.
One area where the companies had commonality was in their use of websites to promote purposes. A majority of the companies, 58 percent, provided information on their website homepages related to their purposes.
Looking at traditional and social media trends, companies in the economic and financial inclusion sector received the most traditional and social media coverage. Companies in the public health/nutrition sector received the least traditional media coverage, and companies in the human rights and social justice sector received the least social media coverage.
Overall, the 50 companies used in this study were similar in that they each had a purpose besides just their business-related purposes. However, the companies used in the study were extremely diverse; they came from different sectors with different finances and different founding years. They had different numbers of employees and different coverage in traditional and social media. This study showed that companies that lead and run with purpose could have very different characteristics, and there is no single type of company that is capable of running with purpose. Rather, any company can lead with purpose if its management and employees are willing to commit.
Catherine “Ellen” Bazley is a senior majoring in Telecommunications at the University of Florida. Follow her on Twitter @EllenBazley.
