[경영]옳은 일을 하는 것과 이윤을 창출하는 것 중 어느 것을 우선시해야 하나?

Doing the Right Thing or Making a Profit - Which Comes First?

by Eric McNulty  |  11:00 AM February 18, 2013

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/02/doing_the_right_thing_or_makin.html

If a company "does the right thing" when it comes to environmentalism, social justice, or some other public issue, does the motivation matter?

There has been much talk about creating social or shared value in recent years. Harvard Business School professors Michael Porter and Rosabeth Moss Kanter are among those who have asserted that companies should care about their impact on employees, communities, and the planet as they pursue profit. Other voices such as Eric Lowitt, author of The Future of Value, have outlined how companies can create value by pursuing sustainability.

The deeper question for leaders is which is the cart and which the horse? Does one pursue social responsibility because it is profitable, or does one endeavor to be profitable with a business model that explicitly incorporates some version of social responsibility? Does it matter?

In my own work, I have come across many businesses that embarked on their journey toward social responsibility because it was a way to save money or increase revenues. I have advised people to fit the sustainability to the culture of the organization: in a growth-oriented firm, highlight the market-expanding opportunities; in a cost-conscious company, talk about saving money. This is a basic tenet of persuasiveness.

The question of motive was posed by Mitch Tyson, a serial high-tech CEO I met at a meeting of the Boston Area Sustainability Group. Tyson was provocative. He said that there was a time when he did not care about why. His particular passion was clean energy, and he was happy so long as it got greater traction. Over time, however, he changed his mind. He came to realize that why is an essential part of the equation for long-term success and impact.

Profit or cost-savings as the primary motive has an obvious weakness: as soon as it becomes more profitable or less costly to do something that is not socially responsible, one would expect the company to pursue that path. A central tenet of those who advocate for shareholder capitalism is that profit should be the only goal of a business: a firm's only obligation is to generate returns for its shareholders. Under this logic, the only reason to pursue a social goal is the belief that there will be a positive financial return associated with that activity.

That evening, Tyson put this question in the context of providing health insurance to employees — a topic much in the news. Tyson said that he could have decided to provide health insurance for his employees because insured workers tend to be healthier, and healthy workers perform better and are absent less often. Instead, he did it because he felt it was simply the right thing to do.

Tyson said that he thought about what he would say to his own family if asked about why his company insured its workers. If it was for purely selfish reasons, that would send one message. If it was because it was the right thing to do, that would send a very different message.

He thought about the ripple effect of that message on his family and the families of his employees. He understood that for clean energy to someday become the norm, enough people would have to be willing to look at various alternatives, weigh both value and values, and opt for the one that was the right thing to do.

I see this debate as part of the most critical job of leaders: to establish clarity about purpose, values, and the business model. Purpose is about articulating what it is you are trying to build. Values define how you will pursue that purpose. The business model spells out how the organization will remain financially viable, delivering sufficient short-term returns to investors while establishing a platform for long-term success. Broadly speaking, for-profit leaders tend to put the greatest emphasis on the numbers; nonprofit leaders at defining purpose, or mission. Clarity about all three — purpose, values, and the business model — is essential for every organization if its leaders and followers alike are to know what is the right thing to do.

요약

 최근 몇 년 동안 기업의 사회적 책임에 대한 이야기가 화두를 이뤘다. 수익성이 있기 때문에 사회적 책임을 추구해야 하는가 또는 사회적 책임의 비전을 포함하는 비즈니스 모델로 수익성있는 노력을 해야 하는가? 이것이 문제가 될까?

 돈을 아끼거나 수익을 증가시키기 위해 사회적 책임 활동을 하는 많은 기업이 있다. 필자는 사람들에게 조직 문화에 맞도록 하라고 조언한다. 동기에 대한 질문은 첨단 기술 기업의 CEO Mitch Tyson에 의해 제기되었다. 그는 사회적 책임을 하는 이유가 장기적인 성공과 영향에 있어서 필수적인 부분이라고 말했다. 수익이나 비용 절약을 위한 동기는 명백한 약점이 있다.사회적으로 책임을 지지 않은 일을 하는 것이 수익이 더 나거나 비용이 절약된다면, 그 기업은 그 길을 추구할 것이라고 예상될 것이다. 자본주의를 옹호하는 이들은 이윤 창출이 기업의 목표이며, 사회적 목표를 추구하는 이유가 금전적인 보상이 따를 것이라고 믿는다. Tyson은 이 질문에 대해 이렇게 대답했다. 직원들에게 건강 보험을 제공하기로 결정했는데, 보험 혜택을 받은 직원들이 더 건강해지고, 건강한 직원들이 더 좋은 성과를 낸다며, 옳은 일을 했을 뿐이라고 생각한다고 했다.

 필자는 목적, 가치, 비즈니스 모델에 대한 투명도를 설정하는 논쟁이 리더들에게 가장 중요한 임무의 하나로 본다. 목적은 당신이 구축하고자 하는 것이 무엇인지를 분명히 표현하는 것이며, 가치는 어떻게 목적을 추구할 것인지이며, 비즈니스 모델은 어떻게 장기적인 성공을 위한 플랫폼을 구축하면서 투자자들에게 충분한 단기 수익을 제공하고, 재정적으로 유지하느냐에 대한 것이다. 일반적으로, 이윤을 추구하는 리더들은 숫자에 초점을 두는 경향이 있는 반면에, 비영리적인 리더들은 목적이나 임무에 초점을 두는 경향이 있다. 리더와 그를 따르는 이들이 옳은 일이 무엇인지 안다면, 목적, 가치, 비즈니스 모델 이 세가지 모두 모든 조직에 필수적이다.