IT HAS been almost 30 years since John Elkington claimed to have coined the phrase: People, Profit and Planet.

The Triple Bottom Line framework for balancing the trinity of social, economic and environmental factors – now solidified into good Harvard Business School thinking – has come a long way from the United Nations’ Brundtland Commission, where Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were defined and established in 1987.

Over the last decade, ESG has been the buzzword in the investment world. The movement to pay more attention to environmental, social and governance factors that first started in the West has gone global. Climate change discourse now goes beyond the multilateral agency talk shops at COP26, to where financing and funding is directed. Central bankers have made it core to their future-proofing agenda, and more financial institutions are signing their Global Compact pledges.

DBS’s mid-September net-zero plan announcement was the culmination of years of nuanced thinking to balance the often contradictory challenges around being tough on coal, and not on the communities supported alongside. Tricky transition, to say the least.

In 2022, the corporate world is well-versed in the “G” of ESG – governance. Here, SGX Regco continues to push the boundaries of public listed companies with its latest consultation.

But “G” is generally par for the course. “E” has unfortunately become such a fad that greenwashing is now a source of regulatory scrutiny.

A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU

Friday, 12.30 pm

ESG Insights

An exclusive weekly report on the latest environmental, social and governance issues.

Sign Up

The launch earlier in September of ESGenome by SGX is timely. Part of the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Greenprint project, it marks a culmination of efforts by MAS and SGX to simplify, standardise and improve corporate disclosures in ESG spheres.

By enabling companies to report metrics aligned with global standards and frameworks, and meeting investor needs for consistent and comparable ESG data, it will help stakeholders across the spectrum – from companies seeking good capital, to investors looking to deploy for good.

Navigating the social landscape

That said, “E” has also been such a focus because of the race to net zero and the data available alongside.

And then we have the “S”, which has been tricky because it creeps into value systems and is often subjective. For instance, NASDAQ’s move for its listed companies to have at least one LGBTQ board member will probably be a diversity and inclusion bridge too far, not only for the Tadawul exchange in Saudi Arabia, but much of the rest of the world.

There is one aspect of “S” that has been a less debatable feature of the corporate – that being the CSR element which has also been folded into ESG reports.

Corporate Social Responsibility, often represented by big cheque presentations, is now gathering momentum along with employee volunteerism (yes – it’s good for employee engagement as well). Since the pandemic, workplace safety and mental health are increasingly also considerations – and will fall into compliance with UN SDG checklist tick-offs.

Unfortunately, once we set scorecards and KPIs for the competitive world of business, sometimes we may miss woods for trees, and end up in debates that are irreconcilable.

For instance, is a “Company of Good ‘‘ one that donates 3 per cent of profits to communities – a more Scandinavian standard – or 1 per cent, or should boards in Singapore even be thinking about it at all? How does “cost” allocated to this build brand value beyond revenues, and will this translate to increased market capitalisation in today’s world of purpose-seeking millennials?

Or consider this. One large listed company which was willing to allocate some funds will only donate to Cambodia. Not because they have business interests there now – which does make some corporate sense – but because they believe their S$100,000 can impact eight times more people there for their desired cause than in Singapore, their home.

I was surprised that apart from a general humanitarian consideration, it was also mentioned in passing that the quantifiable impact will be higher for the quantitative data in their ESG report.

Maximising your social impact

Our Singaporean training to aim to pass exams with flying colours may have unwittingly created unintended consequences for KPI scoring from the very earnest CFO and CEO.

As the business footprints of local corporations expand regionally and globally, or as many international companies use Singapore as their overseas headquarters, my first message is: think Singapore when you express the “S” in ESG.

Perhaps not your whole CSR wallet, but 10, 20 or why not 50 per cent of it? Or, if you have considerable organisational know-how, share your digital, people practice or even marketing skills through strategic partnerships with social service agencies to help them build long-term capability.

Ultimately, strong local communities contribute to a stable society, which is critical for business growth. Businesses can also fulfill the “S” in a meaningful manner, gaining loyal consumers and employees along the way.

I am of course biased in this, having taken on the responsibility of chairman of Community Chest recently.

At Community Chest, we support more than 100 social service agencies and over 200 critical programmes that uplift those in need within our local community – children with special needs and youth-at-risk, adults with disabilities, persons with mental health conditions, and seniors and families in need of assistance.

As the philanthropy and engagement arm of the National Council of Social Service, Community Chest has direct access to information on sector trends, needs and gaps. The quality of programmes is ensured through performance and outcome indicators. This means that donations are channelled to areas with greatest needs, critical for strengthening our social fabric in the long run.

Next, I would urge companies to consider a more sustainable way of expressing the “S”. This can go beyond donations to include volunteering skills and time. Singaporeans are generous. We have seen them rally every time there is a cause highlighted in the media. The key is to make giving easy and accessible for them.

Instead of only writing that big cheque in a very profitable year, Corporate Singapore can lead by allowing their customers to “round up” credit card or utility bill payments, an example already led by Income’s Orange Aid allowing customers to round up premiums for charity.

If we can add a step to purchase insurance into platforms when we ride, shop, make an online payment, or have a process for customers to tip for F&B and hospitality merchants, surely we can creatively enable ordinary Singaporeans to be philanthropists? By adopting a wee bit of “FinTech”, we can engage our customers for collective good.

This is also what our Change for Charity (CFC) initiative hopes to galvanise, by partnering companies to incorporate a giving mechanism into their business models, with donations matched by the government through the CFC Grant.

Community Chest turns 40 next year, so this is a shoutout for who among Corporate Singapore’s leaders will be the first 40 “Change for Charity” companies. Or as Singapore turns 58, who will the next 18 be, by National Day.

As we continue down the path of ESG, expressing the “S” in a sustainable manner is good business, and business-cycle or P&L agnostic. As you encourage your customers to do good sustainably, you will also be enabling a culture of “giving as a part of living”. A more gracious and inclusive society in Singapore is ready to give. Are you?

The writer is chairman of Community Chest, and the former executive vice president and senior managing director (head of global sales and origination) of SGX.