(Illustration by Curt Merlo)
In April 2014, Tiffany & Co. was one of three for-profit companies to sign an open letter to US President Barack Obama that commended his administration’s decision to propose new rules for the importation and sale of ivory. (The other two companies were the Walt Disney Company and the auctioneer Guernsey’s.) The letter, published in The Washington Post, praised the administration for taking steps to implement a nearly complete ban on the elephant ivory trade in the United States. It was a very public demonstration of how Tiffany, where I lead sustainability efforts, has placed leadership in this area at the center of its corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts.
But in our drive to protect threatened forms of wildlife, we have not relied on CSR initiatives alone. In tandem with such initiatives, the Tiffany & Co. Foundation—a grantmaking entity that the company established in 2000—has supported nonprofit organizations that work to safeguard African wildlife. A notable success on that front came in 2014, when the International Rhino Foundation used a grant from the foundation to relocate several critically endangered black rhinos to a safe haven in Botswana.
Challenges such as climate change, economic inequality, political instability, and threats to biodiversity all vie for global attention, and they call for a response by companies that are part of the global economy. In recent years, however, an argument has emerged that traditional corporate philanthropy is no longer a vital tool for effecting meaningful change. As CSR initiatives become more robust and more thoroughly integrated into the operations of companies all around the world, and as the social enterprise model becomes more widespread, some people have proclaimed that philanthropic giving has become irrelevant. “Philanthropy Is Dead,” reads the headline of an article published by The Guardian in February 2014. The article profiles a London businessman who says, “The only way charities are going to survive this is if they start reforming as social enterprises and start building commercial principles into what they do.” Later in the article, he asserts, “There is a new model that doesn’t use the word fund. Instead they are using the word investment.”
That view comes with a significant blind spot: It ignores solutions that cannot be monetized—solutions that require philanthropic support. Community engagement, scientific research, and education, for example, are critical elements of any effort to confront the world’s most complex challenges. But they do not readily lend themselves to the use of market incentives. Our experience at Tiffany demonstrates that corporate philanthropy remains an essential vehicle for effecting social change. A nuanced philanthropic strategy, we believe, can balance market-based approaches and can serve as a tool that is equal in strength to even the most ambitious CSR programs.
For more than 175 years, Tiffany has relied on the bounty of the earth both to supply raw material for the company’s iconic products and to inspire the artisans who create those items. Today, by strategically aligning our CSR initiatives with the grantmaking efforts of our foundation, we are working to leave behind a world that is no less abundantly beautiful than the one that we inherited.
Integrated Efforts
The earth’s biodiversity is under threat from an ever-rising demand for natural resources. As the following examples illustrate, Tiffany’s commitment to preserving biodiversity draws strength from a close alignment of CSR practices and philanthropic grantmaking.
Ecosystem preservation | At Tiffany, we aspire to be a leader among jewelry companies in promoting responsible practices in the mining industry. Our company is a founding member of the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), which seeks to establish a certification system for mined materials that would be similar to the Forest Stewardship Council’s certification of wood-based products. Along with requirements related to good governance, fair labor practices, and respect for local communities, IRMA certification would include strict protocols for protecting biodiversity.
Tiffany and the Tiffany & Co. Foundation both operate on the premise that there are certain places in the world where mining cannot occur without destroying landscapes, devastating wildlife, and damaging communities. In keeping with that premise, Tiffany became the first signatory of the Bristol Bay Protection Pledge. Today, the pledge has more than 100 supporters from the jewelry industry, all of which have promised never to buy gold from the proposed Pebble Mine in the pristine area near Bristol Bay, Alaska. If built, the mine would be one of the world’s largest open-pit gold and copper mines. It would also threaten the most productive salmon fishery in the world.
Tiffany has helped lead opposition to the mine through high-profile position statements. In 2009, the company placed an advertisement in National Jeweler that urged fellow jewelers to recognize their responsibility to source precious metals in a sustainable way. A year later, we placed an ad in National Geographic with the aim of educating consumers about this critical issue. And in 2014, we placed ads in three newspapers (The Washington Post, The Seattle Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle) to applaud a proposal by the US Environmental Protection Agency to protect Bristol Bay permanently through application of the Clean Water Act.
Translating expanded public awareness into permanent protection of Bristol Bay will require action by a wide range of participants. Toward that end, the Tiffany & Co. Foundation has supported a variety of nonprofits that do work in the Bristol Bay region. These organizations have conducted scientific analyses of the proposed mine’s impact on salmon habitat, enabled local communities to establish their own priorities for land use, developed alternative economic opportunities for those communities, and elicited support from all parties that have a stake in the local ecosystem.
Tiffany’s pursuit of public leadership in this area blends seamlessly with the Tiffany & Co. Foundation’s grantmaking activity. By drawing on the distinct strengths of both entities, we increase the likelihood that we can protect one of the world’s few remaining unspoiled ecosystems.
Coral conservation | Coral reefs are critical to sustaining a vibrant marine ecosystem, and conserving coral—a slow-growing animal that is vulnerable to myriad environmental threats—is therefore a top global priority. Given that coral has long been used in fine jewelry, this issue has special relevance for our company. For 15 years, Tiffany and the Tiffany & Co. Foundation have engaged in distinct but complementary efforts to limit the loss of coral populations worldwide. This dual approach has laid the groundwork for advances in the field of ocean stewardship.
In 2002, Tiffany became one of the first jewelers to stop using coral in its products. Understanding coral reef systems, the company concluded that there was no way to harvest the species sustainably. Since then, Tiffany has not only altered its own practice in this area but also encouraged other jewelers to do the same. In addition, we have advocated international policy measures to protect coral. In 2008, Michael J. Kowalski, the longtime chairman and CEO of Tiffany, testified before the US Congress about the importance of preserving this crucial marine species and recommended that red coral receive protection under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. (Kowalski retired from the CEO post earlier this year.)
Alongside the company’s efforts to decrease the demand for coral harvesting, the Tiffany & Co. Foundation has made a series of grants that aim to ensure the long-term resilience of coral in the face of climate change and other threats. Through the foundation, we have funded research on how coral adapts to ocean warming and on how reef management practices can mitigate the impact of human activity. In addition, the foundation has been able to leverage Tiffany’s brand recognition to encourage other stakeholders—recreational sailors and marine tourism providers, for example—to engage in initiatives that protect the ecosystems that they value so highly.
Shared Responsibility
Tiffany is not alone in aligning corporate social responsibility with corporate philanthropy. Although our approach is by no means common, other companies are taking steps to integrate their efforts to achieve social and environmental impact.
The Walt Disney Company, for example, has also marshaled both corporate and philanthropic capital in support of biodiversity. As noted, Disney’s Animal Kingdom joined Tiffany in applauding proposed new rules to limit the trade in elephant ivory. In addition, Walt Disney Studios in 2008 launched Disneynature, an independent film label that focuses on conservation themes. The label works with some of the world’s top nature filmmakers to share stories that educate viewers about biodiversity. The company’s theme parks (particularly Disney’s Animal Kingdom, and the Seas and Land pavilions at Epcot) provide venues for public education as well. Complementing these efforts is the Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund, a philanthropic vehicle that receives much of its funding from the Walt Disney Company. To date, the fund has invested in nonprofit conservation programs in more than 100 countries.
The example of Disney, like that of Tiffany, focuses on efforts to advance environmental conservation. Yet the underlying principle—harmonizing philanthropy and business practices for maximum impact—is one that corporate leaders can apply to any complex global challenge. All too often, people view corporate philanthropy as less strategic or less ambitious than other forms of philanthropy. They regard it as an activity that’s less about advancing change than it is about public relations. But companies that carefully align foundation grantmaking with CSR policies are showing that they can achieve real, long-term impact.
Corporate practitioners, we believe, must resist the tendency to use grantmaking as a kickstand to prop up CSR initiatives. Instead, they must regard philanthropic capital as a powerful vehicle in its own right—one that they should deploy in tandem with other efforts to practice social and environmental responsibility.
Read more stories by Anisa Kamadoli Costa.