Dispatch - Q4 2024

The idea of collective care has, of course, always been around. But for modernity’s sake, and with a focus specifically on western culture, let’s start in 1889. This was the year American Industrialist bajillionaire Andrew Carnegie published his essay “The Gospel of Wealth,” which argued that the rich have a moral obligation to use their fortunes to benefit society, rather than simply passing it down or hoarding it. By the rich, he meant people like himself and Rockefeller. He meant individuals. 

With the business expansion that followed during the progressive era and into the mid-20th century, though, the conversation eventually turned to the overarching role of larger companies. In 1953, “Corporate Social Responsibility” officially entered the chat. This was when Howard R. Bowen, often referred to as the “Father of CSR,” published his seminal text titled “Social Responsibilities of the Businessman.” 

In what is essentially our foundational text for Corporate Social Responsibility, Bowen argues that businesses have an obligation to act ethically and address societal issues and community welfare. It was a groundbreaking concept at the time, and it didn’t catch on immediately.

A full 20 years later, economist Milton Friedman published something of a delayed response in The New York Times Magazine titled “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits.” This was in 1970, and in ‘76 Milton Friedman was honored with a Nobel Prize concerning similar work. 

Perhaps it’s no surprise that our mythical decade of decadence and excess – i.e. the 80s – came next, complete with a Reagan-approved slashing of the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, a defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, and the devastating impact of our government flagrantly ignoring the HIV/AIDS crisis.

Nevertheless, progress, as it does, continued to progress. Activists organized and mobilized, and alongside these other initiatives, CSR, too, began to take a more formal role. 

The evolution and adoption of CSR has accelerated rapidly over the first quarter of the century. To quickly summarize why, I’ll quote Harvard Business Review’s Tim Stobierski (who, fun fact, is also a poet!): 

“While this concept has been around for decades, its importance has grown in recent years as consumers have become more conscious of issues such as climate change, income inequality, health care disparities, unfair labor practices, and gender inequity. As is often the case, this increased consumer awareness has led to businesses embracing CSR practices: An estimated 90 percent of companies on the S&P 500 index published a CSR report in 2019, compared to just 20 percent in 2011.”

In case simple math is sometimes hard for you, too, let me reiterate: That’s a 70% jump in 8 years, and directly on the heels of the Citizens United ruling. Coincidence? I think not. As per usual, we polled our collective of independents around the topic to learn more. 

In answering the question “How important do you believe CSR is for businesses in today’s market?” 73% of respondents said very important or extremely important.

Of the most common pillars of CSR, Ethical labor practices, Environment sustainability and DE&I were marked considered most important for a company to address

• Environmental sustainability
• Ethical labor practices
• Diversity and inclusion
• Philanthropy
• Community engagement
• Fair trade practices

Other key findings include:

BRAND MATTERS, AND PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO WALK AWAY

As consumers and as employees.

66.7% of respondents said it was “very important” or “extremely important” that the companies they work for or with have strong CSR practices

We also asked survey participants: Have you ever made a decision to support or avoid a company based on its CSR practices?

80% of those polled said “Yes, often” or “Yes, occasionally” 

Walk-away examples centered on consumer choices, ranging from making purchases based on guiding principles (like always choosing glass or paper products over plastic) to wholeheartedly not supporting specific companies like Tesla, Urban Outfitters or Chik-Fil-A because of leadership’s staunch political views.

Other companies like Target, Tractor Supply, Brown-Forman (e.g. Jack Daniels) received equally-as-harsh pushback for their indecisiveness–in most cases, dropping or walking back their initially-supportive stances on DEI in response to criticism on the other side of the aisle (in this case, the conservative side). For companies, folding in the face of criticism tends to only draw more criticism, and worse, mark the brand as inauthentic.

Says independent contractor Julie Polk “Tractor Supply Company, which became a regular stop for me when I moved to a rural community, recently eliminated its DEI goals and canceled both its sponsorships of Pride festivals and its carbon emissions goals in response to pressure from the right. I did the requisite yelling online about it, but the actual thing that mattered is that I haven’t gone there since, and I won’t, ever again.

It will be interesting to see how the consumer-influence fight between the left and right plays out over the next few decades, but we do have some hints as to the direction it’s headed in.

Gen Z’s trademark prioritization of purpose over profit continues to pick up momentum. Expected to account for over a quarter of the workforce by 2025, 93% of Gen Zers say “Impact on Society” is the biggest motivating factor in selecting a workplace. 

As a generation that has grown up with ubiquitous access to information and technology, Gen Z is highly aware of global issues and acutely in touch with the world today. They are also not easily fooled. This generation demands authenticity and transparency from companies. They’re personally invested in climate solutions, and herald ethical consumption, social justice initiatives and more. 

As independent contractor Rudy Blanco puts it: “CSR is going to become a necessity. Once upon a time lay people bought stocks in companies as a way to invest in their values and beliefs. Over time that has been perverted into revenue being more important than values… in the next decade as Gen Z and Gen A grow up, or the “woke generation” grows up and begins to impact the economy–they’re not gonna play games… CSR or bust I think.” –

For Gen Z, the boundary between personal values and professional choices is blurred. 

Regarding the evolving role of CSR, independent contractor, Stephanie Susnjara noted “I think it will become more important based on the generation entering the workforce. Based on recent articles I’ve read, work has become somewhat akin to religion in the US and to that end, more people seek to work in an environment that reflects their ethics and values.” 

Regarding the question “To what extent do you think companies should be legislated based on Corporate Responsibility?” A whopping 87% of independents responded “Strongly or moderately legislated”

And it’s already happening. Like Americans’ taste for rock ‘n roll, we just seem to be slightly delayed in following the footsteps of our European siblings.

Currently, 66% of American citizens are eager for the U.S. to establish data protection laws like the GDPR. (Persona)

A quote from Gather’s Ivan Belcic echoes this sentiment  “I don’t believe businesses have a genuine interest in maintaining the illusion of CSR for any reason other than driving profits, and so I’d like to see greater regulations overall. Legislation such as GDPR and the EU AI act are a great step forward in mandating greater social responsibility that corporations are not interested in carrying out themselves.”

Moreso, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires companies to report on the impact of corporate activities on the environment and society, inclusive of an audit of reported information. 

2025 marks the first year of required reporting for an estimated 50,000 companies for both EU and non-EU entities.

Our collective of independents weighed in on the future of CSR and their thoughts and opinions centered strongly around accountability, the role of AI, and the DEI divide. 

DEI & ESG Backlash

The recent trend of backlash and dismantling of DEI & ESG initiatives is disconcerting for many at Gather. There is a concern that CSR will become more polarized as these topics continue to be political hot buttons, but there is also an expectation that Gen Z will demand further accountability regarding CSR and ESG. 

HOW TECH FITS IN

Most see technology not only aiding in tracking, measuring and providing visibility into CSR efforts and benchmarks, but potentially helping companies with discerning and prioritizing what their CSR initiatives should be to begin with. With AI specifically, respondents highlighted it as a double-edged sword, predicting negative impacts around its biases, environmental impact, and impact on job loss. There are further tertiary effects that may play out in the future, too.

Independent contractor Bethany Halbriech pointed to an interesting use case:  “People may ask ChatGPT where they should shop based on a company’s CSR practices; however, since many companies don’t have proper CSR KPIs in place, ChatGPT doesn’t have sufficient information available at the moment to relay accurate advice.”

In the near future that all may change very quickly with the increasing popularity of CSR practices, combined with the evolving capacity of Large Language Models and Agenic AI.

“Technology will shape CSR like it does all things in business. The rate of this development will depend on the growth opportunities that present themselves. If enough consumers and companies demand it, other service providers will rise to the challenge and provide more and more solutions. Many of those are technical in nature.” – independent contractor, Michael Terwindt

To get a bit more of the Independent’s perspective in all this, I spoke with Gather CEO Justin Tobin.

Given your breadth of experience, can you talk about the CSR difference between Gather, a collective of independents, vs. a typical corporation?

During my time on the employee-side of corporate America, I mostly remember the matching programs at year-end as a key way in which employees could contribute to the company’s CSR efforts. Maybe you’d get a list of 16 organizations to donate to, and then the company matches that donation. And that’s great, financial investment matters, and the larger the corporation, the truer that is. But it also felt like a tax write-off. It felt transactional. There were very few opportunities to participate otherwise. 

Whereas with Gather, our size, structure and purpose grants us the ability to act in a manner more reflective of our people with most endeavors–including corporate social responsibility.

 First off, we’re not that big—people’s voices don’t get buried as often. However, because we’re a smaller, opt-in culture, we do have to be more intentional and collaborative. So, we build in opportunities for independents to be heard and have their input synthesized; whether through our monthly roundtables, weekly Gather-created-and-led lunch and learns, various on-and-off-site events, regular surveys, etc.

This makes me think about feeling heard and seen, how fundamental that inclusivity is to CSR, and how it’s often sorely missing at work. According to The Workforce Institute, 83% of employees feel they aren’t heard fairly or equally. 

We intentionally create those containers for feedback and conversation. It’s deeper than just the operational elements mentioned, though, it’s cultural. We’re a completely flat organization and the furthest thing from a public company. So, while we have a brand image and credibility to uphold, we’re also completely unencumbered by stock price. 

Our purpose is not to put money into the pockets of shareholders, our purpose is to simultaneously leverage the underutilized and underappreciated independents to the benefit of our clients’ objectives, while at the same time improving the lives of our independent community. – Justin Tobin, Gather CEO

Because of this structure, all of us can say what we mean—it’s actually much of what our brand is about.

We also don’t have to grow at a pace that doesn’t suit us, which allows us to prioritize our people and values first and foremost, and listen to them. Basically, we’re not putting shareholders above our people, because our people are our shareholders. 

This all comes back to corporate social responsibility and feeds into our own approach because everyone has more of a voice and plenty of opportunities to use it. So, the common denominator in terms of our ethos and cause becomes more apparent more quickly.

Can you synthesize what that common denominator is in terms of ethos and cause around CSR at Gather?

At Gather, CSR stands for Community Social Responsibility.  That is to say, like everything else at Gather, we are a fully flat organization whose values and ethos evolve organically based on the people in our collective. Everyone has a voice and, although we may not always agree with one another, the CSR process is collaborative. Consequently, the cause(s) we focus on are determined through ground-up input from as many corners of our community as possible.  This is different from Corporate Social Responsibility at most companies where CSR decisions tend to be more top-down in my experience.  

So it is less about the cause that sets Gather apart and more about the process for choosing the cause that makes us different. 

Let’s finish where we started: regarding the intersection of business and government in America, can you speak to where Gather fits in?

The idea of being an independent is a very American concept. Why do it to begin with? For freedom, choice, and autonomy–the ability to participate more substantially in your own destiny. 

The outcomes we produce are aligned with our core principles too: creativity, innovation, being future-oriented. There’s something inherently American about what Gather is.

It was always more likely to happen here. In many ways it would have been easier to stand Gather up in Eastern Europe or countries that provide universal healthcare to their citizens, granting them more freedom with what to do with their lives. I wish we lived in a country where this wasn’t an issue. Where we could retain all our uniquely American traits but also have universal healthcare. Because of this, however, what we end up with are people who are fiercely independent, fiercely passionate. People who wanted out of the rat-race, and wanted to break away from the negative elements of what it means to work an American 9-5 job. As time goes on, and if our country moves toward legislating greater collective care, I foresee the opportunity for more companies like Gather to grow.