When I first saw the article in the url below from the FT, I was puzzled:
"Back in November Expensify, a $1.5bn company that helps businesses to manage their expense reporting, IPO'd on the Nasdaq. With the stock down some 55 per cent since, you might think — true to form — we'd now follow up with a snarky comment, particularly after it announced disappointing quarterly numbers on Tuesday. Tempting, sure. But not this time. Instead, we'd like to draw your attention to this paragraph regarding its charity — Expensify.org — from its S-1 filing."
Specifically, the article highlighted a commitment Expensify had made that was intended to promote diversity in the firm's hiring practices (emphasis in original article):
"Through Expensify.org, we seek to empower individuals and communities to eliminate injustice around the world by making giving and volunteering more convenient, accountable, meaningful and collaborative. … In the first year of Expensify.org, our Food Security fund helped feed over 4,500 families in need. When we introduced the Expensify Card, in addition to making it easy for individuals and customers using the card to donate, we committed to donate 10% of our interchange amount from the card to Expensify.org. Beginning in 2021, we made an additional commitment to donate 25 cents for every dollar we pay to white, male Expensify employees to Expensify.org to fund social justice and equity efforts."
As the article comments:
"We've heard of carbon offsetting, but we're pretty sure this is the first time a company has decided to, in effect, offset its white male exposure. So the question now must be: how long until we see a market develop for credits to help manage work force diversity?"
No doubt designed with good intentions, I saw two main problems with Expensify's commitment that are related to underlying flaws in carbon offsets. First, in the same way that carbon offsets are essentially an admission of the amount of pollution being emitted, these offsets are an admission of the extent of discrimination currently in the firm's workplace.
Second, again similar to carbon offsets, behavioral economics teaches us that, when you introduce a fine for a problem, some take it as a moral license to continue the bad practice, which can mean that nothing essentially changes (as with our collective carbon emissions).
Ultimately, as with carbon emissions, if we really want to reduce the problematic behavior, we just need to do less of it – not introduce compensation for the harm being done.
Then, of course, I noticed the date on which the article was published online — March 31, just in time to appear in print the next day, April 1. Unfortunately for us, however, carbon offsets are no joke.
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Expensify's unusual diversity drive
By Jamie Powell
March 31, 2022
Financial Times
