Because we're a virtual company we don't publish phone numbers but you can email us here: contact@eleglobal.me

In conducting the first Professional Services Purpose Survey we wanted to understand where the professional services sit in terms of CSR, Responsibility and Purpose – or ESG, as it is so often called. Has there been an explosion in terms of interest in ethical practices within the professional services or is the sector lagging behind the wider marketplace and client demand? Is there an understanding that CSR and Responsibility differ from true Purpose? Furthermore, has there been a developing understanding that ethical practices – far from being a financial expense or drain – can be used to underpin growth and strategic success?

In this first report we sought to draw a line in the sand, from which to grow and measure progress.

A digital survey was circulated to all MPF and PM Forum members. The survey covered three themes: strategy, planning and reporting; people and priorities; and performance.

 

Part 1: Strategy, planning and reporting

 

Budget

 

Although 80% said there was an agreed budget for CSR, Responsibility and/or Purpose only 35% said activities were entirely planned in advance. 61% said they were ‘somewhat’ planned in advance.

 

Activity

 

When we looked at specific activity charitable donation, perhaps unsurprisingly, was the most popular with 77% of respondents partaking in this. Pro bono work was next with 75% of respondents identifying this. It was also interesting to note that firms are far more involved in traditional CSR activities than the more involved Responsibility and Purpose activities, such as carbon offsetting (51%), creation of dedicated foundations (51%) and education support (21%).

 

Membership

 

Although 23% have signed up to the UN Global Compact, 22% to Investors in People, Race at Work Charter or Legal Sustainability Alliance, 18% to The Chancery Lane Project or the UN Sustainable Development Goals and just 2% holding B Corp Certification or having signed up to Climate Perks, it was most interesting to see that the highest category in this area was ‘other’. Generally more accountancy firms are signed up to ‘something’ (60%) than law firms (40%).

 

Documentation

 

8% didn’t have a Responsibility strategy or policy, and a further 8% didn’t know if they did. Of those that did, environmental measures were top (77%), followed by diversity (75%) and social impact (67%). Fair dealing (33%) and taxes/financial practises (31%) were the least frequently included. Only 45% of those that said they had a strategy or policy said that it was published in the public domain.

 

Reporting

 

Although environmental performance (51%) was the most reported on topic, only 12% reported on this against goals. This broke down to 10% of accountants and just 3% of law firms. GPG reporting was also included in 51% of published reports (despite being a legal requirement for most) yet only 30% of accountants and 47% of law firms said that they went ‘above and beyond’ the legal requirements by including equity partners in the reporting.

 

Part 2: People and priorities

 

Importance

 

71% had a formal E&D programme with 47% having someone in post, responsible for its delivery. Only 10% of these people were at Board level, suggesting it is still viewed as tactical, rather than strategic. 14% had no programme or anyone responsible for it (even in an HR or marketing role) and 4% didn’t know.

 

Priorities

 

When asked how important (out of five) the firm considered various topics at partnership level and also with other staff the findings highlighted a number of interesting differences in assumed priorities. Working with suppliers (4.39 for staff versus 3.76 for partners), environment (4.26 for staff versus 3.76 for partners) and sustainable procurement (4.48 for staff versus 3.63 for partners) stood out. Taxes and financial practises were of import to both groups, although slightly less to staff (4.48 for partners versus 4.34 for staff). Recruitment and retention was high for partners (4.38) but surprisingly low for staff (4.02). The same could be seen with diversity (4.15 for partners versus 3.86 for staff) as a topic. Working practises were important to both but more so for partners (4.39 versus 4.26 for staff). It was also concerning how many said they didn’t know how important partners considered certain areas: Taxes/financial planning (18%) and working with suppliers (18%), for example.

 

Part 3: Performance

 

CSR, Responsibility or Purpose?

 

We asked respondents to consider where their firm is on the journey from CSR to Responsibility and, ultimately, Purpose. The largest group said they were working on Responsibility but have a lot of work yet to do (31%). 24% said they consider Purpose to be a fundamental part of their organisational identity, with a direct link to strategic planning and growth. 16% said they do a lot of CSR.

 

Performance

 

When asked to consider how well they were performing in each area it was interesting to see that ethics was ranked top here with 55% of respondents saying their firms performed well and 31% very well. Modern slavery was next with 51% choosing well and 29% very well. The third most successful area was taxes and financial practises with 33% saying they did very well and 43% well. Respondents felt they generally performed least well at fair dealing, sustainable procurement and social impact.

 

What we can learn from this first Professional Services Purpose Survey

 

Performance versus priorities

 

There seemed, initially, to be little correlation between what was important to staff and performance, but some correlation for partners. Ethics, working practises and taxes/financial practises were most important to partners and, also, featured as the highest performing areas.

For staff, however, sustainable procurement was most important, working with suppliers second, taxes/financial practises third, ethics fourth and working practises fifth. This suggests that there is a noticeable breakdown in terms of having a clear vision that is brought into being by all and and implemented well.

 

Progress to Purpose

 

This report shows that the majority of firms, although willing and working towards Purpose, are in the early stages, with the majority still focusing on traditional CSR areas such as charitable donation, rather than the core Responsibility and Purpose activities, such as carbon offsetting, creation of dedicated foundations, education support and placing importance in procurement and worker development programmes.

To fully understand this, this question must be viewed within the context of the 71% that said they had a formal E&D programme, the 77% that had previously said they had an approved Responsibility strategy or policy and the 45% that said it was published in the public domain. With such high numbers saying that there were written and even published plans and documents, but so few able to articulate whether their focus is on external, internal or combined priorities (as well as its strategic relevance) – and viewed within the context of the lack of internal agreement as to priorities – we have to ask whether the work being done is, yet, truly meaningful. We must also ask how this work can, truly, be impacting on strategic objectives.

 

Membership

 

Although almost all of those that have signed up to ‘something’ produce reporting on their activities, only 12% reported against environmental goals, for example. The findings lead us to consider two things: first, there is a sense of confusion about the best course of action when it comes to membership of these frameworks and, second, this confusion extends to understanding their strategic role and value.

 

Reporting

 

This survey highlighted a wide range of reporting techniques – perhaps unsurprisingly, given the wide range of frameworks, measures and approaches being taken. What was most clear, however, was that firms struggled to know how best to report on this activity. With a significant proportion not aligning activities with strategic planning at a firm-wide level, there was rarely any demonstration of how this activity sat alongside financial and more traditional annual reporting. Readers of this report will note how few, for example, used the Triple Bottom Line in their reporting (only 10% of accountants used it and only 3% of the legal sector).

 

Firms understand that they need to be looking at ESG and the majority have active programmes and budgets to support it. At an anecdotal level the majority accept its importance not only for internal practises but as a driver for business development and client care. But what they appear not to be in agreement about is what this means, precisely what’s important to their internal and external audiences, how to tackle these things and how to hold themselves accountable for progress. Although, as the case studies in the report show, there are some trailblazers in this field, in the majority of cases this confusion appears to be underpinned in a lack of understanding not of whether this can provide strategic advantage but how.

 

To read the full report, as well as case studies and further analysis of what this report calls for in the sector, click here.