社会生态困境及其治理（英文版）.pdf

CULTUREPOLITICSHISTORYQUALITY OFGOVERNANCEECONOMYECOLOGYThe Social Ecosystem Dilemma And How to Fix ItA How to Guide for CorporationsMARC PFITZER, HELGE MAHNE, MARK KRAMER | JANUARY 2020INTRODUCTION In todays complex world, companies everywhere are confronting long-entrenched social or envi-ronmental problems that have major financial consequences for the company and its shareholders yet cannot be addressed by normal business practices. Poor diet and insufficient exercise lead to increased health care costs and diminished employee productivity; inadequate recycling systems are increasing raw materials scarcity and prices; weak infrastructure and government corruption limit entry into emerging markets; low productivity of smallholder farmers leads to poverty, deforesta-tion, and unreliable sourcing; and ineffective educational systems increase employee training and turnover costs. Faced with these dilemmas, companies have typically responded by joining global industry coali-tions and donating to social sector organizations. These broad and well-intentioned efforts, however, have done little to overcome the bottom-line impact of such challenges in companies key markets. An entirely new approach is needed if companies are to capture the many important opportunities for growth and profitability that are blocked by todays societal failings. Fortunately, a handful of pioneering companies have already demonstrated how to identify, manage, and overcome these ecosystem barriers. For example, when Novo Nordisk, a leading provider of insulin to treat diabetes, entered the Indonesian market in 2003, it was stymied for a decade by the lack of health care infrastructure, inadequate training of health care providers, and limited patient awareness of the disease. By 2013, only 3 million of an estimated 7.6 million Indonesian diabetics received any treatment at all, and fewer than 50,000 patients actually adhered to the appropriate regimen and achieved their treatment targets.1Socioeconomic indicators suggested that diabetes would become more preva-lent over time. Improved diagnosis and patient adherence could increase the current insulin market fourfold by 2020, saving 4.6 million life-years,areducing government health care costs by $5.8 billion, and increasing the countrys GDP by $2.14 trillion. Yet neither the government nor social sector organizations were making much progress. Neither were global anti-diabetes coalitions likely to address the specific treatment obstacles in Indonesia.Novo estimated that the company could capture up to half the market increase and determined that the potential sales justified an eight-figure investment to launch a public-private partnership. Working with the Ministry of Health, the Indonesian Society of Endocrinology, and the Indonesian Diabetes Association, Novos leadership and funding catalyzed a new level of cross-sector engage-ment and alignment that has begun to improve patient care and awareness. Diagnostic rates have already improved by 10%, generating increased sales for the company as well as improved health for tens of thousands of Indonesians.a. Life-years (LY) gained is a measure in health economics. It expresses the additional number of years of life that a person lives as a result of receiving a treatment.2 | FSG This guide is based on such examples and FSGs analysis of a dozen corporations that are leading change in the social ecosystems that matter most to their business. Their success is based on five key steps, which we describe in greater detail in the main text, and illustrate through a selection of stories. First, the company reviewed its global portfolio and identified local social ecosystems where intervention would be economically and strategically important to the company. Second, a cross-functional local team was assembled to assess the conditions for change and empowered with the resources necessary to lead the intervention. Third, the team identified and motivated other key actors by mapping the ecosystem and calculating the potential benefits for all concerned. Fourth, the company led a collaborative planning process to develop a blueprint for change that included a plan of action for each key actor. Fifth, the company funded an independent governance structure that kept all partners aligned and offered a forum for tracking progress and making ongoing course corrections. These steps are deceptively simple. In reality, they require significant changes in the ways companies typically operate. Corporate executives have little experience in developing the business case for changing social conditions, and they have been understandably skittish about tackling large, amor-phous social problems outside of their areas of expertise. Executives know well how to manage their corporate ecosystem of suppliers, distributors, and related businesses, but those approaches do not work for the social ecosystem where they must deal with governments, NGOs, and local commu-nities, over which the company has little control. Most corporations have no position designated with the responsibility for evaluating and improv-ing their social ecosystem. Corporate affairs departments are charged with promoting favorable government policies, corporate foundations make grants to support NGOs, and public relations These steps are deceptively simple. In reality, they require significant changes in the ways companies typically operate.GUIDANCE SUMMARY3 THE SOCIAL ECOSYSTEM DILEMMAAND HOW TO FIX IT | departments work with media, but these efforts have limited budgets, are far removed from corpo-rate strategy and operations, and rarely result in material changes to the social factors that constrain the business in the affected regions.At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that major new business opportunities can be unlocked by solving societal challenges through strategies that create shared value, as described in Porter the absence of these enabling systems offers a clear example of the ways in which the ecosystem can constrain shared value innovation in a companys value chain. So too are Nestls efforts to increase dairy production around its plants in China by improving volume and quality of milk from local farms. Community conditions: Although we often think of community conditions in purely social terms, they have a huge impact on the success of companies. Unless BHP is respectful of community needs and works collaboratively with the community and government to improve the local quality of life and standard of living, its mine is at risk of being closed down by protests, a hugely expensive disruption that can also damage the companys reputation and undermine its chances of winning mining contracts in other regions. For Humana, social determinants of health in the community are not a part of its normal value chain, but they do affect the insurers medical costs. Reducing the number of unhealthy days per month improves community conditions and has a material effect on the companys bottom line.In short, the social ecosystem acts as a constraint on every level of shared value creation. Shared value companies must recognize these dimensions as potential drivers or barriers to their success. HOW THE SOCIAL ECOSYSTEM LIMITS SHARED VALUE CREATION 5 THE SOCIAL ECOSYSTEM DILEMMAAND HOW TO FIX IT | THE FIVE-STEP PROCESS TO ECOSYSTEM CHANGEIn a previous article, The Ecosystem of Shared Value,4we outlined a collective impact approach to managing the cross-sector collaborations needed for ecosystem change. (See sidebar: The Collective Impact Process for Catalyzing Ecosystem Change.) That framework has proven to be a highly effec-tive guide, but it does not address the threshold question of where and when a company should take on the difficult and costly task of attempting to change external social conditions, nor did it cover the internal management challenges of leading ecosystem change effectively. As a result, we and our colleagues at FSG set out to study a dozen examples of companies that have successfully led ecosystem change in different industries around the world, in order to understand the key steps that they had in common. (See Figure 1 for the 12 companies and initiatives studied.) These steps are described and illustrated through some of the most relevant actions undertaken by our case companies. 1. IDENTIFY YOUR TOP SOCIAL ECOSYSTEMS The decision to attempt ecosystem change depends first on the importance of the ecosystem failing to support the strategy and financial performance of the company. Like Novo Nordisk in Indonesia, each of the companies we studied developed a rigorous business case for the potential economic benefit to the company from overcoming a key ecosystem constraint. For example, CEMEX, a global building materials company, discovered that significant cost savings could be generated each year by co-processing biomass and non-recyclable industrial and household waste in the cement production instead of fossil fuels, which are highly carbon-intensive. On aver-age, energy expenses are typically 3040% of total cement production costs. In 2018, CEMEX was already using waste for 27.1% of their energy requirements, saving $150 million in costs, contribut-ing to the reduction of 7.9 million tons of CO2emissions since 1990 and diverting 3.3 million tons of waste away from landfill. Yet CEMEX plants around the world faced an ecosystem dilemma: most regions where the company operates lack efficient and large-scale waste collection and recycling sys-tems. The companyand the worldwould benefit tremendously if CEMEX could encourage local communities, municipalities, and waste management actors, both in the formal and informal sectors, to collect and transport waste to its sites. For CEMEX, the business case of accessing alternative fuels from better waste systems is clear.It seems obvious to start with the business case, but whenever considering social and environmental challenges, most company leaders think first of the potential goodwill or reputational risk and often 6 | FSG THE COLLECTIVE IMPACT PROCESS FOR CATALYZING ECOSYSTEM CHANGEIn the Ecosystem of Shared Value, we pro-posed that the collective impact framework could provide a simple but powerful model for cross-sector collaboration to address the social ecosystem dilemma. Collective impact brings together influential actors from across the entire system that shape a particular social issue in a specific region, including business, government, civil society, and representatives of the affected population. A central task force or secretariat oversees the effort, but most of the work is carried out by multiple working groups that address individual aspects of the problem in a coordinated manner. Collective impact depends on 5 key elements: agreeing on a common agenda and vision for change; developing a shared measurement system so that all parties measure progress in the same way; aligning the efforts of individual organizations and working groups in mutually reinforcing ways; maintaining continuous communication among all actors that influence the system; and finally having a “backbone function” in which one or more organizations are dedicated to managing and facilitating the initiative, tracking, and reporting on progress, and compensating for power imbalances to ensure that all voices are heard throughout the process. This backbone function orchestrates and prepares all the partner and community dialogues, helps identify new opportunities, and raises the necessary funding. Our research suggests that without a strong and well-funded backbone, collective impact efforts are unlikely to succeed. When the necessary elements are in place, however, the results can be remarkable.overlook the bottom-line impact. After all, businesses have little experience in changing social conditions and conven-tional wisdom has long held that anything a company does to benefit society is a cost to the business and not a significant source of shareholder value. This is especially true when the challenge is foreign to the companys value chain; municipal waste collection is not a normal part of cement production.To address the challenge, CEMEX developed a pilot strategy prioritizing across its global operations. The company selected locations based on three criteria: presence in high-growth markets, the cement plants co-processing technical capa-bilities, and where local waste management systems are insufficient. For each plant, the potential change in alternative fuel ratios, combined with the plants forecasted production volume and energy costs, yielded a global map of the regions with the highest economic value at stake.Each company will need to develop its own criteria to deter-mine its most valuable ecosystem “hotspots.” Health insurer Humana, for example, considered the social determinants of health and disease burden in different U.S. cities where it had the highest proportion of the insured population. For mining company BHP, the forecasted production of its mines and the relationship with local communities were the key variables: up to one-third the value of a mine is determined by the security of its license to operate.5Once a company has determined where an ecosystem invest-ment is economically desirable, it will also need to estimate the costs involved in overcoming the ecosystem barriers. As with any business calculation, the potential benefit must justify the investment. Given the unpredictability of ecosys-tem change, however, the expected returns must be many times the expected cost; the normal corporate hurdle rate for capital investment is likely too low a bar.7 THE SOCIAL ECOSYSTEM DILEMMAAND HOW TO FIX IT | 2. ASSEMBLE AND EMPOWER A LOCAL TEAM TO ASSESS FEASIBILITYThe economic value at stake must be adjusted by a realistic assessment of the feasibility of suc-cess, which can be determined by examining whether the situation is ripe for change given current circumstances in the region. The feasibility assessmentand leadership of the overall effort if it goes forwardwill need to be conducted by a local team in the target region. (See sidebar: How To Assemble the Right Cross-Functional Team.) Deep local knowledge and presence are essential to an effective social ecosystem intervention. If a company is serious about gaining the prize, it must allocate sufficient resources to empower a local team to spend a significant amount of time in researching, launching, and leading the effort. The job is too big for this to be done “on the side.”Assessing the readiness for change is a critical milestone. Social change is hard enough under the best of circumstances, and companies cannot afford to be naive about the challenges they face. FIGURE 1: DILEMMAS IN THE SOCIAL ECOSYSTEMMillions of smallholder farmers in Africa cannot access Yaraproducts to increase yieldsLimited aw