Peter Shergold| CSI

Many of us in academia still perceive university as a gateway to lifelong learning. We judge the inclusiveness of society by the opportunity that we provide to our citizens to access its manifold benefits.

We extol freedom of thought and speech, see academic learning as their cornerstones and imagine universities as the institutional protectors of such ­liberal values.

Perhaps, though, in a Google world in which crowd-sourced (and often unprovenanced) opinions become the source of wiki-authority, our expectations have become too grand.

Those we teach often make more material assessments. Students routinely work out if it’s worth investing in a university degree. There is a range of websites that allow people to estimate the earnings value of a degree over a working life, apply an algorithm to compute the net present value of both financial and opportunity costs (using an online annuity calculator) and in quick-smart fashion assess the dollar return. “On average”, asserts one such American site, “getting a bachelor’s degree is just like paying $US126,000 for the right to claim extra earnings with a net present value of $US383,000”. (Thankfully in Australia the provision of low-interest loans under HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP shifts the equation decisively in favour of undertaking a university education.)

Education in this brave new world often appears to be just another variety of commercial transaction. The unspoken premise is that the offerings of university have a utilitarian value, based on the acquisition of predominantly vocational skills which, through improving labour force productivity, offer private returns to the individual.

Judged through instrumentalist eyes, one can make an economically rational decision on whether to go to university and, perhaps more importantly, which subjects to study.

Before we despair at the material values of Generation Y, let’s remember that they have learnt what we have taught. Ministers and, indeed, prime ministers, routinely quote figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to show the ­earnings advantage of acquiring certification from vocational and higher education institutions. Universities seek to promote their quality in a competitive environment, often on the basis of rankings that reflect the increased salaries that their graduates achieve.

Of course, the private gains are matched by public benefits. Estimating the relative returns to each is a crucial part of the evidence base that informs government higher education policy.

The graduate receives higher post-tax lifetime earnings as a result of increased salaries and lower levels of unemployment. At the same time, the state benefits from larger tax receipts, lower welfare costs, higher labour force participation and greater workplace productivity.

In addition, university-led research makes a major contribution to innovation, with benefits extending far beyond those that accrue to private sector funders.

Lateral Economics has estimated the economic value of Australia’s health and medical research. Using a 50-year simulation analysis they calculated a positive revenue-cost ratio of 1.66 and a health-based benefit-cost ratio of 3.37. One might expect similar returns on research in science and engineering.

Even in the arts and social sciences, where benefits are less quantifiable, it is reasonable to expect a positive turn on public funding.

Australia also gains trade advantages. Opening our universities to ­overseas students earns the nation $15.8 billion a year, making education our third-largest export industry. Governments, which tend to see public support for university education as expenditure rather than investment, need to acknowledge these economic benefits.

The real danger is not so much that students, universities and governments seek to monetise the value of higher education but that the framework of evaluation is generally conceived far too narrowly. A university does create financial value but at the same time it also builds social benefit.

Universities UK recently contracted the New Economics Foundation to assess the social returns on investment in universities. Degrees of Value sets out the individual social outcomes that often accrue to university graduates beyond the financial rewards that they gain. These include being better able to manage finances, feeling healthier, being more tolerant, having greater capacity to form meaningful friendships, showing more political interest and exhibiting stronger independence.

These less quantifiable private benefits also contribute to public good. Social returns are achieved by the creation of a more civic and civil society, with higher levels of citizen participation, stronger interpersonal trust and more social cohesion. If you believe the methodological calculations of the report, the public value generated by these societal values is worth £1.31 billion ($2 billion). Frankly, I find the audit of benefits persuasive but the accounting unconvincing: the value of social mobility, for example, still falls back on measuring the uplift in graduate wages as its key financial proxy.

One profound finding from such studies is that the social benefits of university education are significantly greater to the extent that access to university is sufficiently wide to create a fairer and more meritocratic society.

Unfortunately, in Australia it is students from higher-income, less disadvantaged families who continue to be the most likely to gain the private benefits of education. The present level of participation by lower socio-economic status (SES) students, about 15 per cent, has remained virtually unchanged through successive governments.

Yet the greatest private, public and social benefits are achieved by increasing participation by lower-SES students. Relative to the outcome if they did not graduate from university, they gain more financially and socially – and so does society. Otherwise, as the Harvard sociologist Christopher Jencks mused back in 1972, the main function of a degree may be to “certify people who were different to begin with”.

It was the explicit social mission to be an open university serving its community which made it so easy for me to accept the position as chancellor of the University of Western Sydney. UWS has about 7500 lower-SES students, the highest number of any Australian university, representing 23 per cent of our domestic intake. Most are first in family to go to university. Better still, and against the trend, they have a higher retention rate than their better-off colleagues. That success has a positive influence on the distributional impact of higher ­education.Providing access to lower-income, disadvantaged students significantly increases social mobility, creating a more productive and cohesive community. Dollars invested in the success of a low-SES student provides a higher rate of private and public return that for their more advantaged colleagues.

I have no doubt that in time it will prove possible to measure more persuasively the dollar value of equal opportunity. Yet many of us recognise that in doing so we risk losing something more powerful.

What inspires, and what many of us seek to convey to students, is the ­importance of fairness and equity to the participatory ethos of a tolerant, open, respectful, engaged and democratic society. We know widening access to university can help ensure that an accident of birth does not determine destiny.

Peter Shergold is chancellor of the University of Western Sydney and Macquarie Group Foundation professor at the Centre for Social Impact UNSW.

This article first appeared in the Australian Financial Review 30 April 2012.

Peter Shergold | CSI blog

In a previous blog I talked about the importance of qualitative attempts by nations to measure the good life.  It was courageous, I thought, to write about statistics.  Today I’m going to address the issue of integrated reporting.  Braver still, I suspect.  I risk becoming the boring bloke who stands between you and the drinks fridge at a party.

I do so because the issue is fundamental to how companies measure, and report upon, their ability to create and sustain value – not just economic and financial but social, environmental and governance factors.  It’s an idea whose time has come.  Below the radar, the reporting framework for companies is set to change.

I sit on the board of a publicly-listed company.  I know, having to read every page, how long, detailed and complex the Annual Report has become.  Much of its arcane nature is driven by regulatory requirements.  Presentation of strategy tends to get lost behind dense technical jargon.

It’s hard to tell our story in an engaging and informative manner to our shareholders, policyholders and stakeholders.  The narrative gets buried in the voluminous financial statements and their detailed explanatory notes.  Like many companies we end up employing workarounds, providing an alternate measure of ‘underlying profit’ that we believe is a better measure of our corporate performance over time.  The financial reporting predominantly looks backwards:  non-executive directors like myself are only too well aware that discussing future prospects gives rise to potential legal liabilities.

Company reporting, then, tends to be extensive but partial.  It is commonplace that documents on corporate citizenship, social responsibility or sustainability are issued separately from the Annual Report.  The measures of performance are then selected from a widening array of reporting vehicles – from the Global Reporting Initiative framework to the London Benchmarking Group.  This gives rise to three problems.

First, it perpetuates the belief that the reporting measures of societal or environmental value may be chosen to present a company’s performance in the best light.

Second, it suggests that community benefit or sustainability initiatives are simply well-meaning (or self-serving) bolt-ons to the real business of the business presented in the Annual Report.

Third, as Helen Brand, the President of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants has blogged, “Presenting the information separately, in silos, makes it difficult to build up an overall picture of a business’ long-term value …  We need an integrated approach to reporting.”

Thankfully, a move is underway to do just that:  to streamline company reporting, reduce its costs and – most importantly – provide a clearer picture of organisational performance.  The International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) was set up in 2010 by a large group of distinguished corporate, regulatory, academic and civil society leaders to design a more comprehensive but flexible reporting framework.

The IIRC’s mission is to find ways to better communicate the total value that companies create.  To do so it is necessary to make transparent the six ‘capitals’ on which a company depends (financial, manufactured, human, intellectual, natural and social) and to explain how they are assessed and deployed in a strategic manner.  Among the guiding principles of integrated reporting are the connectivity of information, its future orientation, stakeholder inclusiveness and commitment to conciseness, reliability and materiality.

According to Goran Tidstrom, President of the International Federation of Accountants (and a member of the IIRC), “Financial information is not sufficient.  We have to provide information on sustainability, on social issues and environment, and it has to be done in an integrated way with a financial report.”  Here’s how.

Social capital reporting is meant to recognise a company’s social licence to operate, including the corporate values and behaviours that prevail;  how relationships are conducted with customers, suppliers and business partners;  and the extent to which the business enhances individual and collective wellbeing.

Natural capital reporting is intended to exhibit how a company’s activities impact, positively or negatively, on the ecosystem – water, land, minerals, forests and biodiversity. 

Human capital reporting is designed to capture the alignment of a company’s ethical values and governance framework including, for example, how human rights are recognised.

The IIRC has now issued a comprehensive Discussion Paper on its ambitions.  It’s a good read.

The good news is that some Australian innovators are not waiting.  The new cooperative bank, bankmecu, has already announced that it is to work with the Net Balance Foundation to develop an integrated reporting framework for its 2011-12 Annual Report.  At the bigger end of town NAB’s Annual Report for 2011 already includes a significant section on corporate responsibility as an integral part of its business strategy.

Accounting and applied statistics can seem to be dull disciplines.  The truth is that unless we can measure and report upon the value of social and environmental good created by companies effectively, the momentum for them to create ‘shared’ economic and societal value is likely to slow.  That, at least, is my perspective.  I’d welcome your views.

Peter Shergold is the Macquarie Group Foundation Professor at the Centre for Social Impact (CSI) at UNSW. This blog post first appeared on the CSI blog.

Gina Anderson | CSI Blog

2012 looks to be a defining year for the not-for-profit, social enterprise and philanthropic sector and Gina Anderson outlines why she is looking forward to the next 12 months.

I think it will be a defining year for the sector. I gave my forecast for the next 12 months some consideration over the break.

First: social policy and regulation reform. Slow, grinding and often – but so critical for systemic change. This has been at the forefront of the agenda for the past year and as a result, three big issues will have significant social impact in 2012:

1.    The introduction of National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)

Most Australians assume that if people are born with a disability or acquire one later in life, that some system, somewhere, will take care of them. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, as the population ages, the number of people with a disability will increase. At the same time, the number of unpaid carers – family members and friends – willing and able to provide support will decrease.

The NDIS represents an urgent and fundamental reform to the way disability services are funded and delivered. It is a social reform on the scale of the introduction of Medicare and compulsory superannuation – two safety nets now taken for granted by every Australian.  Prime Minister Gillard has now identified the NDIS as a key Federal Government reform.  Visit the Every Australian Counts website for more information.

 2.  The establishment of a new independent statutory agency: the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission

The Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC) will commence operations from 1 July 2012 and will initially be responsible for determining the legal status of groups seeking charitable, public benevolent institution, and other NFP benefits on behalf of all Commonwealth agencies.

The ACNC will also implement a ‘report-once use-often’ reporting framework for charities. It will provide education and support to the sector on technical matters, and establish a public information portal by 1 July 2013.

3.    The introduction of the Pokies legislation.

‘The Federal Government has proposed gambling reforms which include “pre-commitment” technology that will require pokies players to have a card registered to their name and pre-programmed to prevent them losing more than a set amount in a 24-hour period.’

Other trends

Coupled with policy reform, the rise of engaged philanthropists such as Gates and Buffet and their interest in social investment are changing way we all think about social sector.  Established trends such as the move in expectation and measurement of not-for-profit practice from outputs to outcomes, and the realisation that we need multiple sector partnerships to solve our intractable issues, are being accompanied and supported by other trends. These are:

1.    Crowd funding or Micro-Philanthropy

As conventional fundraising struggles, increasingly charities and social enterprises will look to crowd-funding or micro-philanthropy (using the internet to solicit pledges of small amounts of money from individuals) to source money. This is often referred to as the “Obama effect” referring to the US President Barak Obama’s use of the internet to source small donations to fund his electoral campaign.

Importantly donors see their contribution as a ‘social investment’ rather than a donation and as most of these donations are small, the donors do not seek a tax deduction.  In this way donors at all levels are able to invest in social innovation – funding new ideas and processes that move or cause or organisation to greater sustainability, durability, impact, and scale.

2.    Blended capital

The use of blended capital will grow as social enterprises and charities seek finance and capital from outside the not-for-profit sector.  While many will continue to make grants or donations, others will use their capital for impact investing rather than giving a grant.

There will be loans and guarantees to non-profits and gradually, we will see the use of debt and equity instruments.  While others will directly invest in social enterprises seeking a ‘blended return’ on their investments – a financial return on their investments that may not be as high as other possible returns but will better align their investments and their social aims.

3.    Intermediaries

To support this new world of social investment we will see the growth of intermediary organisations and products for different ‘social investors’.

Social finance intermediaries play a crucial role in bringing together the key sources of capital with social businesses and there is a crying need to develop such intermediaries in Australia.

It is exciting time to be working in the not-for-profit sector and I look forward to 2012 with great enthusiasm.

Gina Anderson is the Philanthropy Fellow at the Centre for Social Impact (CSI) at UNSW. This blog first appeared on the CSI blog.

Roger Simnett & Sarah Adams | Centre for Social Impact Blog

The Centre for Social Impact’s recent roundtable was a great opportunity to examine the confluence of two journeys: that of Integrated Reporting (and the IIRC), and Shared Value (Porter and Kramer 2011). At first glance, these initiatives are quite different: Shared Value refers to a management approach to improve business decision-making, and build economic value (see Phil Preston’s blog ’Why ‘shared value’ is good business’), while Integrated Reporting is a new approach to reporting and communicating strategy and performance (see Peter Shergold’s blog ’Shared Value Business: the Case of Stockland’). However, reflecting on the discussion at the roundtable brought to light some key points where these two journeys intersect.

A New Role for Business

A key connection between the concepts is they both reflect a desire to move beyond businesses prioritising short-term financial performance, and to reorient the efforts of a business toward long-term success and sustainability. This has been driven – at least in part – by the very widely articulated social and economic consequences of the ‘short-termism’ in financial institutions that triggered global economic crisis.

Alongside this there is an implicit recognition that any organisation or firm is an actor that interacts with a complex social and environmental setting. The Shared Value thesis suggests that that cognizance of, and investment in, an organisation’s social and environmental context can create opportunities for augmenting economic value. That is, social, environmental, economic and other sources of value are interrelated and not necessarily mutually exclusive (which is a common argument among corporate responsibility critics). These underpinnings are also reflected in the capitals approach of Integrated Reporting, where organisations are encouraged to ‘make visible’ their use and dependence on many sources of capital (financial, manufactured, human, intellectual, natural and social) and how these are used to create value.

The Trend of Embedding

More broadly, both Shared Value and Integrated Reporting reflect the trend of progressive businesses taking a more strategic approach to sustainability by seeking to embed sustainability into core business practice. Both approaches suggest that breaking down the ‘silos’ of current practice -the corporate responsibility reports vs. annual reports, and the corporate responsibility departments vs. ‘the rest’ of the business – can provide material benefits to organisations. Integrated Reporting is defined by “demonstrating the linkages between an organization’s strategy, governance and financial performance and the social, environmental and economic context within which it operates”, and recent evidence shows that the main driver of integrated reporting among the world’s largest companies was “seeking to integrate corporate responsibility into core business”. An example of an organisation pursuing shared value, Stockland (as profiled by Peter on this blog) integrates environmental and community benefits into central business activities and to sustain long-term value.

Looking Out and In

Another key similarity between shared value and integrated reporting is leveraging internal and external factors to the organisation. Two of the ways suggested by Porter and Kramer to create shared value include ‘reconceiving products and markets’, and ‘building clusters’ which both necessitate engagement with an organisation’s context, including deeper connections with stakeholders. These indicate that Shared Value revolves around the idea that sensible and productive decision making within an organisation can be made by positively engaging external resources and organisations. On its own journey, a company producing an integrated report will produce an external communication tool (integrated report) which will be responsive and inclusive to stakeholders, but a crucial additional outcome will be improved internal decision-making and information.

Distinctions

While the two concepts do resonate with each other, their journeys have seen some key distinctions. A key driver of integrated reporting has been the escalating compliance burden of reporting for many organisations. Seeking to cut the clutter of annual reports is a key driver of the initiative for both report producers and its readers.

Another important distinction is the challenges faced in implementation. Integrated Reporting is a holistic and long-term commitment for organisations; for most organisations the production of an integrated report will require extensive preparation and thus a considerable time frame. Integrated Reporting must also accommodate the plethora of laws and standards across the global that relate to reporting compliance and communication. The hurdles are high. In contrast to this, shared value is a more agile management approach, which can be undertaken on many levels: from a product, to program and up to an organisational level.

Despite these distinctions, there are points of confluence for Integrated Reporting and Shared Value. With great momentum, practitioner and academic interest behind these ideas, it will be instructive to consider how these two approaches learn from, and contribute to each other. What do you think? Is there any value in looking at these two concepts together?

Roger Simnett is a professor in accounting at the Australian School of Business.

Sarah Adams is the NAB Research Fellow at the Centre for Social Impact.

This article first appeared on the CSI blog.

Peter Shergold | CSI blog

It was in May 1968 that Robert Kennedy, with characteristically brilliant oratory, identified the abject failure of governments to measure the quality of life afforded their people.  The traditional statistic – per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – “does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play;  it does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials …  It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”  Listen to the speech on YouTube:  it will raise the hairs on the back of your neck.

Two generations on, governments are struggling to address Kennedy’s challenge.  As not-for-profits increasingly seek to measure social returns on investment, and companies to give quantitative dimension to societal as well as financial value, give a thought to the world’s statisticians.  Frustrated with the shortfalls of GDP as an indicator of wellbeing, they are struggling to find alternative means to measure progress in the quality of people’s lives.

It’s not a moment too soon.  Democracy is under challenge.  Levels of trust in politicians are worryingly low.  Less remarked upon is the lack of public confidence in official statistics.  In France and the UK, for instance, only one-third of citizens believe official figures.

Not surprisingly there is a renewed sense of urgency amongst government statisticians.  In May this year the OECD, as part of its 50^th anniversary celebrations, launched the Better Life Index.  It builds on a French initiative, the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, led by renowned American economist Joseph Stiglitz, which reported in 2010.    The Commission concluded that for many purposes there were better economic statistics than a measure of production, GDP:  levels of real household income, for example, or the extent of income inequality.  It is not that GDP is a wrong measure but that it is often inappropriate as a measure what people care about.  In many instances data on social or environmental wellbeing is more relevant.

The Better Life Index seeks to respond to the Commission’s challenge.  It measures 11 dimensions, with 1-3 indicators in each:  housing, income, jobs, education, the environment, governance, health, life satisfaction, safety and work-life balance.  It’s proposed to add more criteria in the future.

The challenge, of course, is how to address the relative importance of such indices of well-being.  The OECD deftly sidesteps the problem by making the index interactive.  Each visitor can weight the variables on-line as they want and share their views with others via Twitter or Facebook.  This is statistics in the age of social media.

It’s made difficult to work out which of the OECD’s 34 member states scores best.  You have to measure the height of flowers and the size of their petals!  I know you don’t believe me but take a look.  Weighing all variables equally on the horticultural scale Australia, I think, is placed second, just behind Canada and just ahead of Sweden in the Better Life garden fertility stakes!  Some 75% of Australians are satisfied with their lives compared to just 59% for the OECD as a whole.

As a nation we rate particularly well on the Community dimension.  Around 95% of Australian respondents believe that they know someone they could rely on in a time of need.  Interestingly 65% report that they have helped a stranger in the last month, compared to an OECD average of only 47%.

The United Nations is also actively seeking to move beyond traditional measures of national wealth. The UN Development Program argues that “an excessive obsession with the creation of material wealth can obscure the ultimate objective of enriching human lives”.  Seeking to redress that defect it has recently issued its 2011 Human Development Report.

Frankly it doesn’t pack the enjoyment of the Better Life Index, requiring its users to possess some understanding of income logarithms and geometric means.  The data, which graph trends back to 1980, is probably more compelling.  It creates a composite index of human development by measuring 3 dimensions (health, education and living standards) against 4 indicators (life expectancy at birth, years of schooling, expected years of schooling and gross national income per capita).

Now I know that your ethical self will recognise the dangers of putting such data into league tables.  But I also know that your inquisitive self wants to know how Australia performs.  The answer is that of 269 countries (47 developed nations) we rank 2^nd after Norway, performing slightly better than the Netherlands, the US, New Zealand and Canada.  In short, the more comprehensive statistical metrics suggest that Australia provides a better quality of life than measures of GDP indicate.

Peter Shergold is the Macquarie Group Foundation Professor at the Centre for Social Impact (CSI) at UNSW. This blog post first appeared on the CSI blog.

Peter Shergold | CSI Blog

At the end of August I attended a forum organised and hosted by the Business Council of Australia (BCA) on ‘The Sustainability Challenge’.

The invited guest was Bjorn Stigson, President of the World Business Council for Sustainability Development.   His presentation was relatively downbeat, reflecting how difficult it is proving to make significant progress on global issues such as climate change in a ‘nobody-in-charge’ world.

Part of the problem, as BCA’s CEO Jennifer Westacott emphasised, is that a sustainability agenda is too often portrayed as at odds with an economic growth agenda.  “Indeed”, she argued, “the sustainability agenda is the natural home of business and it should never have been captured as part of some extreme political or ideological agenda.”  For business, environmental good practice remains “fundamental to the social licence to operate”.  Yet the present debate on emissions reduction “seeks to paint big business as the culprits” rather than a partner for sustainable development.

How does one overcome that perceptual categorisation?   How can one portray business as part of the solution rather than simply castigating it as the cause of the problem?  Those were the implicit questions in my recent blog on the causes of the anger that have characterised the Occupying Wall Street protests.  One answer, I suggested, drawing heavily on the recent work of Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, was for companies to articulate their ‘shared’ economic and societal value.

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that for me the highlight of the BCA forum was the presentation by Matthew Quinn, Managing Director of Stockland.  He argued eloquently the business case for sustainability but in a highly distinctive manner.  I am happy to be corrected but to my knowledge his speech represented the first time the corporate ambitions of an Australian company had been presented as “creating shared value for all stakeholders” (Matthew’s emphasis).  It was not a desultory genuflection to the latest business school semantics.  The speech, from beginning to end, was permeated by the concept.

Stockland, of course, is known for its development and management of residential, retirement living and commercial property assets.  It builds homes, retirement villages and shopping centres.  Profits are important.  They fund future projects and provide a return to public investors.

Stockland, as a good corporate citizen, could have continued to present its accountability in terms of separate ‘sustainability’ and/or ‘corporate responsibility’ reports.  What Matthew’s presentation recognised, however, is that environmental and community benefits are not additional to Stockland’s business model – they are central to it.

Shared economic and societal value begins by understanding that what Stockland is building are not properties but communities.  Residential development is not simply a financial transaction based on subdivisions.  It’s about creating places where people want to live.  Social value (the provision of local schools, childcare and health, retirement and shopping facilities) and environmental value (planning for open space, parkland, water recycling and low energy houses) are not costly ‘add-ons’ to the business.  They represent the lifestyle which is being purchased.  Societal benefits contribute to economic return.

Similarly, shopping centres can be made more valuable to the extent that they are designed and managed as community hubs.  Commercial property, not just residential, can bring greater economic returns through the creation of societal value – making malls a pleasant and safe venue to meet and talk not just a place to park and shop.

What Stockland is effectively doing is rearticulating in contemporary language the vision of its founder Ervin Graf.  Graf, sixty years ago, argued that the purpose of his business was “to not merely achieve growth and profits but to make a worthwhile contribution to the development of our cities and great country”.

Matthew Quinn’s presentation recognised that these two goals are integrated within a single strategic enterprise.  Profits (economic return) and community development (societal return) are the business’ shared values.  In the long-term they leverage off each other.

Stockland is not defining its community activities as ‘giving back’ to society.  Its ethos is driven by social investment not charitable endeavour.  The initiatives are the business:  it is the nature of the business itself, properly framed and implemented, which creates beneficial social and environmental impact.

Shared value cannot be just a well-intentioned statement of faith.  The challenge now is for Stockland to demonstrate, through robust liveability metrics, that the property developer’s investment in community provides superior financial outcomes and improved shareholder returns over the long-term – higher sales, greater occupancy and faster speed to market.

If so, as Mathew Quinn concluded, shared value “is a win-win.  It is a better way”.   In my next blog I’ll talk about another iconic Australian company which has the potential to present its activities as ‘shared value’.  I’d be delighted to have other instances drawn to my attention.

Peter Shergold is the Macquarie Group Foundation Professor at the Centre for Social Impact (CSI) at UNSW. This blog post first appeared on the CSI Blog 28 October 2011.