What factors shape management decision-making in IT impact sourcing service providers?
IT impact sourcing means outsourcing IT work to bottom-of-the-pyramid employees with the aim of socio-economic development impact. This was the focus for a study recently conducted within the Centre for Development Informatics at the University of Manchester by postgraduate researcher, Ioannis Traintafyllis under the supervision of Dr Brian Nicholson.
As detailed in a previous blog entry (“The Research Agenda for IT Impact Sourcing”), Rockefeller/Monitor research estimates that impact sourcing is already a US$4.5 billion market employing 144,000 people and “has the potential to be a $20 billion market by 2015, directly employing 780,000 socio-economically disadvantaged individuals”.
The most common model of impact sourcing involves three main actors: the client, the BoP sub-contractor employees/enterprise, and an intermediary that sits between the other two and provides quality control. Examples of leading impact sourcing intermediaries – also known as ‘impact sourcing service providers’ (ISSPs) – include Digital Divide Data, Samasource, Business2Rural (India) and Daproim Africa.
The ISSP is critical but we know very little about what shapes their decisions: are they driven by a moral concern for the disadvantaged of the world, or by economic gain, or something else?
To investigate this issue, Schwartz and Carroll’s (2003) three-domain model of corporate social responsibility was used, shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Domains of Responsibility Driving Managerial Decision-Making
The model identifies three domains of factors which, individually or in combination, can shape decision-making in organisations like ISSPs:
– Economic: e.g. a drive to profit
– Legal: e.g. a drive to comply with the law
– Ethical: e.g. a drive to comply with a moral code
This model was then tested with an established ISSP via interviews with senior managers plus a review of secondary sources. Examples were found of all three domains shaping decision-making in the company:
– Economic: senior managers saw the impact sourcing model as “an asset to open doors to the market” which could deliver an income stream for the company and meet clients’ needs in various ways. First “it makes sense economically for our clients” but there was also a necessity to meet client standards “on the basis of quality” and also to meet client needs “to know if we operate in an ethical, corporate responsibility way”. There was, though, a largely instrumental sense of economic factors: getting the economic aspects of the ISSP business model right was not an end in itself but a means to a wider end.
– Legal: again, senior managers’ decision-making was shaped by an awareness of the legal context but as a box to be ticked; as an enabler to other ends: “we obey the legal responsibilities and the rules of the society but it is our social mission that guides our actions”. There was an awareness of the value of compliance with global standards such as the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, but these had not shaped the core functions of the company; rather those core functions were already well-shaped in a way that could meet global standards.
– Ethical: the main impetus behind formation of the firm, and the foundation for decision making was the impact of contracts in providing jobs, skills and incomes for those from disadvantaged backgrounds in developing countries. In philosophical terms, this was more a consequentialist than deontological morality: driven by the outcomes of the firm’s actions rather than by some deeper and shared moral code.
Two other elements, though, were notable in the responses of senior executives, which reflect some of the specifics of the ISSP business model.
First, this is as yet a relatively new, small and fragile business model. Senior managers were therefore continuously concerned about sustainability of the business model and of the company. As a concern, this had pushed diversification – of both client domains and outsourcing locations – as a strategy. Diversification can be read as both economic and ethical in its origins, though an issue for all ISSPs will be whether – over time – there is a tendency for the balance to shift from the ethical to the economic.
Second, all domains and issues – economic, legal, ethical – were continuously filtered through the lens of corporate reputation and profile. Managers knew clients, in part, signed up because of the positive image of impact sourcing; but would walk away if impact sourcing got a widespread ‘bad press’. Their foremost legal concern was to ensure external awareness of compliance. And they were keen to share stories of individuals who had been helped by impact sourcing; stories being the type of data that readily lends itself to good PR.
This is only to be expected. In conceptual terms, as with other types of fair trade, clients do not have direct access to the context of production. The ISSP is an agent acting on behalf of their client/principal. As a result the link between client and BoP subcontractors is almost entirely mediated by trust, image and reputation of the ISSP, and by the wider media portrayal of impact sourcing. This would necessarily make ISSPs most concerned about the appearance of processes and impacts.
The importance of external image is reinforced because impact sourcing intersects two business models – fair trade and IT offshoring – both of which have come in for strong, at times intimidatory and vituperative, criticism; particularly in the US.
We can therefore revise the basic triorbital model (see Figure 2) to show its dynamics over time which lead sustainability and diversification to shape decisions; and to show that all issues are always filtered through a reputation/profile lens, affecting not just external communications but also internal decisions.
Figure 2: Factors Driving ISSP Managerial Decision-Making
The base of data used here is very limited, so much remains to be researched, but we hope this model can form the foundation for future study. Analysis can probe the relative weights of the three domains, including the potential for changes in those weights over time. Research can also look at the difficulties of managing in a field in which appearance may matter more than reality.Follow @CDIManchester
 Schwartz, M.S. & Carroll, A.B. (2003) Corporate social responsibility: a three-domain approach, Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-550