Tag Archives: Campbell Soup

Campbell Becomes America’s First Public Company to Acquire a Public Benefit Corporation: In Conversation with Plum Organics’ Cofounder

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in CSR, CSRwire

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Redefining corporate law. Targeting the node of enterprise to shift capitalism.

Those were some of the thoughts running through Neil Grimmer’s mind as he joined eight other businesses to welcome Benefit Corporations in Delaware in July, 2013.

As cofounder and President of Plum Organics – along with a small group of parents – Grimmer’s philosophy has been pretty straightforward: Every kid deserves the best nutrition and no child deserves to go hungry.

The result: an organic food line that prioritizes nutrition, environmental conservation, reduced packaging [a supply chain assessment of the traditional glass jar vs. the Plum pouch was undertaken that showed energy consumption for the latter was much less, fossil fuel consumption for their transportation was a ninth, and they’re 14 times less likely to end up in landfills even with aggressive recycling of the glass jars] and an accompanied mission to target child hunger.

Sound like a lot to take on?

Grimmer’s conviction came from experience. As the former VP of strategy and innovation with Clif Bar, he knew a thing or two about product development that infuses innovation with sustainable practices. “At Clif, I looked at sustainability as a journey, not a method. We’ve adopted that here at Plum,” he says.

Plum Organics went from recording $800,000 in sales in its first year [2008] to $93 million in 2012.

Consider these statistics:

  • 60 percent of retailers in the U.S. carried Plum in the latest quarter
  • The No. 3 baby food brand in the U.S. after Gerber and Beechnut
  • The top growing brand in the baby food category by actual dollars and percent growth this year, with 135% growth vs. a year ago

While the numbers tell their own story, here’s the kicker.

A Public Benefit Corporation: The Implications

Plum Organics is a certified Benefit Corporation. And now with Delaware’s recognition of the legal status, parent company Campbell Soup Company – who announced plans to acquire Plum in May Plum_Organics2013 – becomes the only company in the U.S. with a fully owned subsidiary that is also a Public  Benefit Corporation.

“Our business success at Plum has been based on creating a great product in a way that respects the highest levels of corporate citizenship. It is actually good business to be a good corporate citizen – and our success speaks to that belief,” says Grimmer.

Grimmer is excited – about the notoriety as well as joining hands with an iconic American brand, well-known for its altruistic actions and social causes.

“We have a mission centric core: nutrition and solving hunger with our benefit corporation status our secret sauce and innovation driving the entire process. Campbell has a dual mandate: strengthen the core Campbell business while driving new consumers and innovation. It’s a perfect marriage,” he explains.

With global aspirations [“Hunger and health are global issues.”] and a lofty ambition [“Make sure our products get into every high chair and lunch box globally.”], Grimmer “wanted a partner who would drive both [our goals] with us and help us pave the way to address a more global need that kids have. We have innovation driving our core – we launched over 150 products in the last six years specifically addressing nutritional needs of young families.”

Aligning Ambition With Impact

After spending some time with Campbell Soup Company CEO Denise Morrison, Grimmer’s search Plum Organics Super Smoothiecame to an end.

“As our company grew, so did our ability to impact the world,” says Grimmer. And being a benefit corporation meant the added leverage of a model that places impact and profits in the same sentence. Like The Full Effect program, which was launched this year to target 16 million kids who go without daily meals every day.

“We now had the scale and capability built into the business to make an impact. So we designed a Super Smoothie jam-packed with nutrients,” he says.

So far, Plum has committed to producing and distributing half a million Super Smoothies in 2013. Sound familiar? In 2012, Campbell led a similar one-of-a-kind campaign to produce more than 40,000 jars of “Just Peachy” salsa exclusively for the Food Bank of South Jersey, using fresh, local New Jersey peaches that were not able to be sold because of blemishes but were fine to eat. The initial run from last year’s harvest generated $100,000 for the Food Bank of South Jersey through retail sales.

“Collaborating with Plum made sense for us on several levels. They’re a mission-based organization and their focus on eradicating childhood hunger is strongly aligned with our work nationally and in Camden, N.J. – where Campbell is headquartered. That helps build the collective impact we can have.”

“Plum and Campbell are both consumer-centric companies, and we share a focus on innovation, a critical component of success as we continue to marry our citizenship commitments with the Campbell business model,” responded Dave Stangis, Campbell’s Vice President, Public Affairs and Corporate Responsibility.

Side Effects of An Acquisition

Clearly, the stars align for the two companies but at the end of the day, Campbell is a public company with shareholders and the pressures of satisfying quarterly balance sheets. Will the acquisition bring along with it the familiar headaches of layoffs, change in management and perhaps even a shift in models?

“Plum is a standalone business and will remain so. I will continue to lead Plum Organics and our team is staying intact,” says Grimmer, who plans on remaining an active member of the recently established Plum board of directors. The company will also continue to headquarter in California.

Stangis who has been leading the iconic company’s CSR efforts since 2008 was also quick to cut to the chase about the two organizations’ merged path going forward. “We’re in the process of structuring the Board for Plum. We’re proud to say one of our subsidiaries is a founding member of  the Public Benefit Corporation league.”

“We have already begun working with Neil and the Plum team. We are connecting on joint priorities and sharing Campbell’s CSR and sustainability resources,” he added.

“We’re looking forward to leveraging Campbell’s capabilities and skills to grow the Plum brand. As we dig into these opportunities, we will also be looking to focus on aligning our public benefit corporation with Campbell’s mission, model and culture. They have such a strong CSR program that the opportunities to target hunger are endless,” Grimmer explained.

And this is where Grimmer believes the conversation needs to shift.

“There is a new economy emerging of consumers who are looking to purchase from companies with a mission. They’re building a virtuous circle. When consumers support a business, you end up growing quickly with more exposure and higher impact,” he says.

Of course, being a public benefit corporation is but one element of Plum Organics’ success. It’s an exciting business story.

But the bigger story here is about being able to make an impact by combining a good product with sustainable attributes and an associated social and environmental cause. And that is where Grimmer wants to push his colleagues across corporate America further.

“The business community needs to look at how they are creating values alignment with their core consumers in a marketplace where loyalty is getting scarce. Let’s create many more of those virtuous circles.”

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on May 1, 2013.

Advertisement

The True Value of CSR Reporting: In Conversation with Campbell Soup’s VP for CSR

07 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in CSR, CSR reporting, CSRwire, ESG

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The soon-to-be-released report will mark Campbell Soup’s fourth CSR Report. This report comes amidst a CEO change – Denise Morrison took on the chief job at Campbell Soup last year joining a small group of women CEOs in the Fortune 500 – and a period of what Director of Diversity & Inclusion Kevin Carter calls a time of “deep introspection” for the company.

Carter’s note is well taken. With the economy sputtering and flailing, reports continue to suggest that consumer confidence and trust remain low. For a food manufacturer then, this means not only staying ahead of the curve of quickly changing taste preferences but also understanding its unique role in encouraging nutrition across an increasingly complex and fragmented consumer base.

And amid a tepid economy, where does the true value of CSR and sustainability reporting lie? Can these reports and the effort required to produce them extend beyond an exercise in sharing key metrics, the year’s highlights – and a few, incredibly sparse media mentions – to true learning experiences for companies to better their processes and make gains that help them and their communities become more sustainable?

The True Value of CSR Reporting

Dave_Stangis_CSFor VP of Public Affairs and Corporate Responsibility, Dave Stangis – his third report since taking the job at Campbell Soup – the true value of Campbell Soup’s reporting goes far beyond setting the right goals and reporting on the progress.

“The true potential of CSR reporting* is that while companies go through this chronological reporting effort once a year, the organization and business units are executing their strategies and working on metrics year-round. The process of reporting creates an opportunity to build a Campbell Soup Britannica or World Book to work off of and use as a record of the company’s progress,” he said in a recent interview.

“All year-long, we are collecting examples, building the narrative, monitoring our progress and continually evolving materiality assessments,” he continued. Often, great examples of progress emerge that would otherwise never rise to the spotlight in a multinational company.

“As you dig in, you find cross-functional teams working together on strategy, benchmarking, indicators, etc. There are, of course, always things to improve on but the stories and ideas that emerge from this heels dug in reporting exercise are incredibly useful in moving our company forward,” he said.

Connecting the Dots: Recognizing the True CSR Heroes

In recent weeks, CSRwire readers read from a number of top executives at Campbell Soup on their stories and contribution to the 2012 CSR report. Trish Zecca discussed the fine balance between nutrition and taste while Amanda Bauman discussed how the company is tackling hunger and obesity in its communities and Dr. Daniel Sonke gave us an in-depth account of the relationship between agriculture practices and corporate sustainability. Finally, D&I Director Kevin Carter offered his insights on how the company is prioritizing intercultural teams, moving diversity beyond compliance, and tentatively dipping its toes in social media.

For Stangis, these are the true heroes.

“These are the people who are behind the images and stories in the report. They are invested in the business Campbell_Soup_Volunteersand their work and there is a discernible amount of pride and work ethic that goes along with that,” he said.

“For our CSR Communications Manager Niki Kelley – creating this report is her life for six months and I’ve told her, she’s the one who knows more about the entire company than anyone else in the company.”

5 Questions for Campbell Soup’s VP for CSR

What is Stangis most proud of in the latest CSR report?  “It’s the nuances that a lay reader won’t realize but that are critical to the progress we are making,” he said. To explain further, we decided to play five questions:

1. Whose Interested:

“We continue to evolve our understanding of our various audiences [for the CSR report]. We want to connect with our employees on the frontline as well as in the C-suite. We need to impact our neighbors and make the content relevant to our customers and consumers. Most readers are looking for quick snapshots and I want to validate, reinforce and build trust and credibility in that short timeframe.”

2. What’s New:

“We’ve really worked hard on strengthening the wellness and nutrition metrics from a product perspective…we’re not driving a health ultimatum, but we are offering more healthy choices for consumers. Readers that pay closer attention will notice a growing sophistication in our strategies and metrics across the board. This report also includes the first full description of our Healthy Communities Initiative that we’ve launched in Camden, NJ.”

3. What’s Often Hidden:

“We work hard to make sure nothing gets lost in the details, but there is a ton of content that most readers will miss on a casual glance. The CEO Letter can give the readers a sense of how Denise Morrison thinks and interacts with the CSR and sustainability strategy.”

“We’re bridging from an employee engagement (only) mindset to a performance culture that leverages engagement to drive better business results. This isn’t something that is immediately obvious to external readers but it’s a priority for us.”

4. What’s Measured Gets Managed:

“Last year we discussed our community programs but this year the report really talks about these in a strategic and measurable manner. We continue to advance our metric set from product conception to societal impact. We’ve mapped our production sites with the WBCSD Global Water Tool and as we’ve brought our Community and Foundation functions into tighter alignment with our CSR and Sustainability strategies, we are shifting from measuring activity to measuring outcomes.”

5. Uncharted Territory: 

“The big news this year from a sustainability perspective is our traction on renewables. We’ve had smaller efforts in the past but in 2011 we went from dipping our toes in the water to flipping the switch on one of the largest solar installations in the country. This represents a cultural shift for the company. Large scale renewable projects just weren’t in our solution set and now we are evaluating new renewable opportunities across our plant network that reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and save money.”

Solar_Panels_at_Campbell_SoupFor Campbell Soup, a global footprint means a holistic vision of sustainability that encompasses its products, employees, communities and supply chain.

And for Stangis, publishing an annual report is not only a testament to his team’s efforts but also a way to measure what’s not working. Having led CSR at Intel before joining Campbell Soup, Stangis is a veteran in the world of CSR reporting, and has seen firsthand the evolution of the sector.

“What comprehensive reporting does today is set up a process that continues to position the company in the long-term. This wasn’t the case when we started reporting. Now we’re anticipating issues and breaking down communication silos that are inherent in the company,” he explained.

Challenges Ahead: More Data, Clarity of Purpose

Any regrets? “We need to keep pushing ourselves for better data every year, especially for our international footprint. It’s only when you dig in that you realize how much better a fully integrated measurement and reporting system would be,” Stangis confessed.

The journey – as for most companies taking on the responsibility and challenge of reporting on their corporate social responsibility and sustainability efforts – is far from over.

And as a seasoned sustainability executive, Stangis understands the daunting task that lies ahead for Campbell Soup in a crowded market, evolving taste preferences and the continuous challenge of consumer education.

“We still have to plug people into what we are doing, the reason why we are doing it [and make it make sense],” he said, noting that it isn’t just the external stakeholders that need the dots to be continually connected for them.

“We have to do a better job at communicating the strategic intent and shareowner value delivered by a comprehensive CSR program.  Our internal teams, our C-suite – it’s our job to help them understand  the story across the board.”

Originally written for and published on CSRwire’s Commentary section Talkback on May 24, 2012

Does Expending Resources on CSR and Sustainability Destroy Economic Value?

13 Tuesday Sep 2011

Posted by in CSR

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Corporate Social Responsibility isn’t about giving money away and adopting the latest cause of activists. CSR and sustainability are approaches to business operation and execution that build employee engagement, improve environmental performance, create positive social impact, enable operational efficiency, reduce cost, foster innovation, strengthen relationships with customers and consumers and ultimately…create business advantage.

That was Dave Stangis, VP for Corporate Responsibility with Campbell Soup Company responding to University of Michigan Professor Aneel Karnani’s infamous editorial in The Wall Street Journal, “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility.”

Then, the argument was “capitalism versus corporate social responsibility, CSR versus profits, and where an idea like CSR fits into a business’ main objective, which is to make profits for its shareholders.”

Despite numerous debates [Fenton’s BIG CSR debate] and as many editorials and reports [Why There Is a Case for Corporate Social Responsibility], the inequity of the idea — or the perception that being responsible will cost a company money and therefore is an expense business doesn’t need — prevails.

But the actual essence of this debate no one can seem to pinpoint. Are we fighting over semantics or strategy?

Is it the misperception that CSR is a cost, a tagged on responsibility, and therefore, unnecessary for companies? Or that CSR is completely estranged from the notions of capitalism as Professor Karnani believes — and is, in fact, the wrong argument?

Since his controversial editorial, Karnani of course has continued to incite criticism for what many call an “extremely shortsighted and narrow view.”

Now, the associate professor of management and strategy for Michigan’s Ross School of Business is headed to New York City to debate his argument in real-time on the occasion of the CR COMMIT! Forum 2011, organized by Corporate Responsibility Magazine and NYSE Euronext [Details below].

Fashioned as an Oxford-style debate [DEBATE: RESOLVED that when companies expend resources on corporate responsibility and sustainability they destroy economic value], Karnani will be joined by Gerry Sullivan, president of the VICE fund, on the pro-markets side.

On the pro-sustainability side will be Paul Herman, CEO of HIP Investor and Dr. Vinay Nair, founding partner of Ada Investments and adjunct associate professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School.

In a sneak peek, I talked to three of the debaters [Dr. Nair couldn’t make it] on the essence of their arguments as well as: How does each of them define CSR?

Take a read:

Thriving on the Value of Vice

Gerry Sullivan from VICE funds believes in the power of capitalism. His funds select well performing stocks of tobacco, alcohol, gaming and weapons companies because they believe that, “Vice industries tend to thrive regardless of the economy as a whole.” Anyone reminded of the root of the financial collapse?

“I believe in capitalism because it ensures that products and services coming out are tested on the profit mandate and ultimately are good processes because they come through the interaction and the ability to gain profit,” he said.

Fair enough. Historically, companies who do well tend to share more.

Making Too Much of CSR?

“My biggest fear of CSR is that people want to make more of it than it really is. A company’s ability to employ better people and deploy profits is the real goal. Everything else is settled by the market,” he continued.

But clearly there is a differentiator between companies that invest in their community and immediate environment over the long-term and those that focus on short-term yields?

Affirmative, says Paul Herman.

Citing the ever quotable example of BP, he said, “When you look at their track record, BP was not a good corporate citizen and lost 40% of shareholder value in just a few months post the oil spill. Companies are not prepared for the volatility of climate change and its effect on cash flows and natural resources.”

Further, “Research from Wharton School and other academics has shown measurably that companies that help solve social and environmental problems can enjoy a higher shareholder and portfolio value,” he said.

“This decreases risk for business and increases value,” he added.

CSR Cannot Dictate Social Enterprise, But Profits Can

Because it had begun to sound like a battle between two followers of capitalism with opposite operational ideologies, I asked Karnani to step in.

“Companies can maximize profits and social enterprise at the same time, which is why capitalism works well. This is where Paul makes a good argument. Of course companies should do all this,” he said.

“But we don’t need CSR to make this argument. It’s as simple as ‘make the money, help employees.’” he added.

Here is where the caveat comes in however, he said. “This isn’t always true. When markets fail, we cannot appeal to companies to sacrifice profits for CSR and it is naive of anyone to think that all the stakeholders are always aligned in their interests. If this were true, we wouldn’t need the study of economics,” he argued.

His solution? Going back to what he had argued in the WSJ editorial last year: Government regulation.

And this is where my problem with the debate starts: How can government regulate behavioral change, cultural perceptions, and a deteriorating environment? Or are we now talking of CSR as a program, an initiative, a fundraising for charity opportunity?

If so, was Karnani suggesting the route the Indian government took recently by “mandating 2.5% of net operating profits must be spent on CSR” by all publicly traded companies?

Perhaps, although we won’t know till the live debate at the COMMIT! Forum.

Back to Square One: What the heck is CSR?

Clearly, the next question: How are these men defining corporate social responsibility? Intentionally or not, I had hit the nail on its head.

VICE Funds: “CSR is Green, And It Isn’t Generating Green”

According to Sullivan, “CSR is embedded into green and green hasn’t generated green for most companies.” Also blaming the government for supporting “and pumping a ton of money into green jobs,” which many say has been a failed effort at reviving the economy, Sullivan continued:

The internet bubble taught us that having pool tables and kegs doesn’t make the companies money. If the jury is still out on whether good companies will do good things, I say they’re smart enough to treat their employees well. You don’t need CSR for that.”

“I would like the companies I invest in to not be socially responsible but responsible to their shareholders and producing products that the government can use to generate revenue. I certainly hope that these companies think highly of their employees but I’m less inclined to think that they would give up profits over socially responsible activities.

HIP Investor: “CSR is Generating Top Line Growth”

For Paul, the question isn’t about green or management. “You start by asking yourself what social or environmental problem you are solving. Companies who are doing well have a core mission of improving the world in some way and making money while doing so.”

Citing the example of banks, he explained, “Banks were started to help people grow their income and wealth and became more integrated in their communities.”

“Starbucks in the U.S. spends more on the health care of its employees than the coffee beans because they support a better quality of life for employees and a higher labor standard.”

The argument, at least for Herman, isn’t about the validity of CSR anymore. “It’s about generating top-line growth and bottom-line profits. That’s why employees and investor relations teams are key in solving this paradigm,” he concluded.

Karnani: “If CSR is Beyond Making Money, Then It’s Not Making Money”

“CSR is a very confused notion. If you just mean businesses doing good for society, then capitalism is actually good [for society]. If CSR goes beyond ‘making money,’ then it’s not about ‘making money.’ When a company does something socially useful and loses money over it, that’s CSR. And definitionally, CSR loses money,” he concluded.

Confused? Irate? Redeemed?

Want to attend the COMMIT!Forum? Register here or connect with me on Twitter @AmanSinghCSR for a special discount code. The Forum begins on September 26, 2011, at the Javits Center in New York City and offers a full two-day agenda complete with a CSR careers symposium, keynotes and workshops.

And if you cannot make it, stay tuned here for more coverage.