Businessman touching button ESG on-screen with connected virtual icons over the background.ESG environmental social governance business strategy investing concept.
Photo: iStock | pcess609

McDonald’s last year hired Jon Banner as its chief impact officer and EVP, joining several other companies in adding the title to their C-suite.

“Jon is the perfect leader to oversee our Sustainability & ESG, Government Relations and Public Policy, Communications and International Corporate Relations functions, as well as Ronald McDonald House Charities – building on the momentum of the Impact function as we strengthen and protect our reputation around the world,” McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski said of the hire.

Mr. Banner held a similar role at PepsiCo.

The chief impact officer role guides ESG (environment, social, and governance) and CSR (corporate social responsibility) policies. It is seen as broader than the chief sustainability officer and more publicly-facing than the chief purpose officer. Chief impact officers, according to Kindred, “tend to have an external focus around the impact of the business’ activities and how they align with the company’s mission and values.”

Celebrity hires in recent years have put a spotlight on the position. Taco Bell appointed Grammy award-winning artist Lil Nas X as chief impact officer in an honorary role. Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, was appointed chief impact officer of BetterUp, the virtual coaching platform.

IBM, Flexport and KPMG are among a number of other firms that have added a chief impact officer to their C-suite as studies continue to show corporate responsibility becoming more important to consumers.

The 2022 Bentley University-Gallup Force for Good study found most Americans would be willing to pay extra for a t-shirt if the company that made it was known for having a positive impact on its local community (73 percent), treating its employees well (72 percent), having a positive environmental impact (63 percent) or contributing to charities (60 percent).

“Companies are feeling pressure from all sides to pursue impact in [their] work both internally and externally,” Alex Budak, author of “Becoming a Changemaker” wrote in an Inc. column. “To make this happen, leadership teams need someone to elevate impact from an isolated department to an essential lens for making decisions.”

BrainTrust

“McDonald’s move speaks to the need for large-scale corporations to define, measure, and integrate next-level ESG and CSR goals and communicate them clearly.”

Carol Spieckerman

President, Spieckerman Retail


“As for appointing celebrities, I think this is extremely gimmicky and is more about grandstanding than anything else. This is a serious role, not a marketing campaign.”

Neil Saunders

Managing Director, GlobalData


“Aren’t all C-level execs hired to make an impact with their employees, customers, partners and shareowners? If not, then why did they get hired?”

David Spear

VP, Professional Services, Retail, NCR

Discussion Questions

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Do you see value in adding the chief impact officer role to retail’s C-suite? If not, do you see a traditional executive role taking greater ownership over ESG and CSR issues?

Poll

Do you agree that the chief impact officer role should be added to retail’s C-suite?

View Results

Loading ... Loading …

Leave a Reply

19 responses to “Do Retailers Need A Chief Impact Officer?”

  1. Mark Ryski Avatar
    Mark Ryski

    I do see value in adding a dedicated role and the largest retailers are already doing it. Retail impacts society and the largest retailers especially impact it. By applying c-level focus on these important issues much more can be accomplished, delivering greater impact. But we shouldn’t get hung up on titles, ultimately this is about action and results. Whether it’s a dedicated position, or the formal addition of responsibility to other leaders, as long as it remains a priority for the company.

    1. Bob Amster Avatar
      Bob Amster

      Mark Ryski, I concur completely. I happen to believe that we have expanded the C-suite too far, and therefore, tend to lean in the direction a “formal addition of responsibility to other leaders” for the particular responsibility.

  2. Neil Saunders Avatar
    Neil Saunders

    ESG and CSR are now critical for most retailers. They can make a positive contribution to the business as well as to the world. A dedicated role can be a very effective way of pushing priorities within the business and coordinating actions. However, successful implementation requires all departments to be involved. As for appointing celebrities, I think this is extremely gimmicky and is more about grandstanding than anything else. This is a serious role, not a marketing campaign.

    1. Gene Detroyer Avatar
      Gene Detroyer

      Yes, Neil. Success requires all to be on board. A C-level executive may help, but if the lowest-level employee doesn’t embrace it, it will not be successful

  3. Gene Detroyer Avatar
    Gene Detroyer

    Is the objective of this position to show the public that the company cares, or is it a serious leadership position that will clash with other C-suite goals? For this to be successful, Mr. Banner will have the sharpest teeth in the company and power over operational, marketing, and financial decisions.

    I can not speak to McD’s intentions, but companies talk the game better than they execute it.

  4. Dr. Stephen Needel Avatar
    Dr. Stephen Needel

    Blowing smoke – no real value. If a company wants to do good, go ahead and do good – you don’t need someone who’s job it is to make sure of this in the c-suite. My guess is that the real good that gets done is local rather than corporate, so let the CEO encourage that and the marketing team come up with examples.

    And don’t believe the survey – the industry has done this same type of survey all over the world. People are never willing to pay more for anything (t-shirts, toilet paper, doesn’t matter, never happens).

  5. Carol Spieckerman Avatar
    Carol Spieckerman

    McDonald’s move speaks to the need for large-scale corporations to define, measure, and integrate next-level ESG and CSR goals and communicate them clearly. The title given to the position doesn’t matter as much as the scope and scale.

  6. Mark Self Avatar
    Mark Self

    No.
    I think (from memory-not by googling it!) that some private equity professional got us started on this path, and sadly it is ill conceived.

    I believe it is pretty well established that companies who attempt to measure themselves and make decisions with ESG/CSR in mind typically DO NOT increase shareholder value. The KPI’s are too subjective, and this kind of “virtue signaling” does nothing to help retailers compete and attract customers. That is not to say that goals like sustainability can not align to a profit seeking firm, however one needs to make these goals financially measurable.

    1. Scott Norris Avatar
      Scott Norris

      You may need an executive and associated bureaucracy to deal with the measurements and reporting being imposed by EU and other governments, I support the goals & believe private enterprise is the main way this world is going to get more resilient – but you get there through empowering everyone in an organization to innovate, not by imposing arbitrary checklists.

  7. David Spear Avatar
    David Spear

    Wait, aren’t all ‘for-profit’ companies trying to make an impact with their product & service portfolio? Aren’t they all trying to make money for their shareowners? Aren’t all C-level execs hired to make an impact with their employees, customers, partners and shareowners? If not, then why did they get hired? I see this as more of a PR move than anything else.

  8. Dick Seesel Avatar
    Dick Seesel

    As I understand the role at McDonald’s, the Chief Impact Officer is charged with a lot of “external relations” issues that none of the other “chiefs” wants to deal with. It feels like a good way to take a bloated bureaucracy and blow it up more.

    In a retail context, the other operating heads — such as marketing, stores, merchandising, finance and operations — need to be totally conscious of environmental impact and social responsibility instead of creating a path to “outsource” those issues.

  9. Jeff Sward Avatar
    Jeff Sward

    No, the answer is not adding another C-suite officer. The answer is evolving current roles to be able to deal with an evolving market. Yes, it’s all more complicated than it was just a couple of years ago. But the answer lies in investing in action on the ground, not expensive C-suite jobs. Current C-suite players might need a new lieutenant either in the office or in the field to help ferret out issues, but a whole new C-suite office could just as easily complicate things. Other officers could begin to think, “phew…not my job”. The new role could become a new silo, with an agenda in conflict with existing processes. And in fact, the new agenda will be in conflict with “the way we’ve always done it”. If the right people are already in C-suite they will be building their staff in recognition of the changes that need to be made. And if they aren’t, then the CEO can replace a C-suite player, not add to the turmoil by adding a player.

  10. Joan Treistman Avatar
    Joan Treistman

    Reading the other comments makes me think I’m being naïve. But I look at the chief impact officer role as a pro-active arm vs the public relations position which is reactive. How much influence the chief impact officer has is up to the CEO and the rest of upper management, along with those who are supposed to implement. However, if this role is truly recognized and robust it can push awareness of the company’s positive initiatives and build equity. At the same time, it seems about time for companies to identify their need to pay attention to what in fact impacts the world around them.

  11. Doug Garnett Avatar
    Doug Garnett

    I simply cannot imagine this making a significant impact (so to speak) on company effects. Unless these ideals are part of every job and every decision, they are merely a grand idea tacked onto the side of the corporation.

    Worse, giving someone this title likely does unexpected harm as it relieves all other execs from the need to consider the whole world as they do business – thus making it more likely that damage will be done. An unexpected consequence common in corporations.

  12. Brandon Rael Avatar
    Brandon Rael

    As ESG (environment, social, and governance) and CSR (corporate social responsibility), policies become more formalized and supported by executive mandates. It would be wise and strategic to have an executive in the Chief Impact Officer role and a supportive organization to execute these strategies.

    Often during transformation work with clients, we have seen conversations around “what do we do about ESG or CSR” often arise. While the subsequent discussions are productive and outcome-driven, where organizations fail is on the execution side. Without a dedicated Chief Impact Officer and organization, these efforts will be de-prioritized due to other critical needs.

    The emergence of a Chief Impact officer is another stage of the evolution of the retail and consumer industry operating model. Just as we have seen the emergence of Chief Digital Officers, Ecommerce, and Innovation organizations, this is just another step of the process.

  13. Craig Sundstrom Avatar
    Craig Sundstrom

    “There ought to be an officer for that” seems to be the corporate equivalent of the old saying “”There ought to a law for (against) that.” I disagree: officers should represent distinct areas of a company – production, legal, finance, etc.; the claimed areas of “impact” can readily be accommodated under this existing framework.

  14. John Avatar
    John

    In my opinion, this is window dressing. If a company is truly committed to these issues, it shows up in their every day culture. It’s everyone’s responsibility, not a designated officer’s.

  15. storewanderer Avatar
    storewanderer

    Short answer is no.

    I am glad to see how this question is polling.

    Despite all the noise in government about ESG and many consulting firms thinking it will be the next big thing for them from a revenue perspective I am just not on this bandwagon.

    Operationally though if this ESG thing really takes off, they will need another executive to oversee it and communicate its results to whoever cares.

  16. ScottJennings Avatar
    ScottJennings

    ESG Compliance Reporting Regulations are coming for public companies in the US in 2024, & are already be in place in other geos. Accurate operational Reporting on Sales & Inventory is already challenging enough for the typical retailer, a separate owner responsible for risk & compliance reporting, which includes ESG, at large public retailers makes sense.

19 Comments
oldest
newest
Mark Ryski
Mark Ryski
2 months ago

I do see value in adding a dedicated role and the largest retailers are already doing it. Retail impacts society and the largest retailers especially impact it. By applying c-level focus on these important issues much more can be accomplished, delivering greater impact. But we shouldn’t get hung up on titles, ultimately this is about action and results. Whether it’s a dedicated position, or the formal addition of responsibility to other leaders, as long as it remains a priority for the company.

Bob Amster
Bob Amster
  Mark Ryski
2 months ago

Mark Ryski, I concur completely. I happen to believe that we have expanded the C-suite too far, and therefore, tend to lean in the direction a “formal addition of responsibility to other leaders” for the particular responsibility.

Neil Saunders
Neil Saunders
2 months ago

ESG and CSR are now critical for most retailers. They can make a positive contribution to the business as well as to the world. A dedicated role can be a very effective way of pushing priorities within the business and coordinating actions. However, successful implementation requires all departments to be involved. As for appointing celebrities, I think this is extremely gimmicky and is more about grandstanding than anything else. This is a serious role, not a marketing campaign.

Gene Detroyer
Gene Detroyer
  Neil Saunders
2 months ago

Yes, Neil. Success requires all to be on board. A C-level executive may help, but if the lowest-level employee doesn’t embrace it, it will not be successful

Gene Detroyer
Gene Detroyer
2 months ago

Is the objective of this position to show the public that the company cares, or is it a serious leadership position that will clash with other C-suite goals? For this to be successful, Mr. Banner will have the sharpest teeth in the company and power over operational, marketing, and financial decisions.

I can not speak to McD’s intentions, but companies talk the game better than they execute it.

Dr. Stephen Needel
Dr. Stephen Needel
2 months ago

Blowing smoke – no real value. If a company wants to do good, go ahead and do good – you don’t need someone who’s job it is to make sure of this in the c-suite. My guess is that the real good that gets done is local rather than corporate, so let the CEO encourage that and the marketing team come up with examples.

And don’t believe the survey – the industry has done this same type of survey all over the world. People are never willing to pay more for anything (t-shirts, toilet paper, doesn’t matter, never happens).

Carol Spieckerman
Carol Spieckerman
2 months ago

McDonald’s move speaks to the need for large-scale corporations to define, measure, and integrate next-level ESG and CSR goals and communicate them clearly. The title given to the position doesn’t matter as much as the scope and scale.

Mark Self
Mark Self
2 months ago

No.
I think (from memory-not by googling it!) that some private equity professional got us started on this path, and sadly it is ill conceived.

I believe it is pretty well established that companies who attempt to measure themselves and make decisions with ESG/CSR in mind typically DO NOT increase shareholder value. The KPI’s are too subjective, and this kind of “virtue signaling” does nothing to help retailers compete and attract customers. That is not to say that goals like sustainability can not align to a profit seeking firm, however one needs to make these goals financially measurable.

Scott Norris
Scott Norris
  Mark Self
2 months ago

You may need an executive and associated bureaucracy to deal with the measurements and reporting being imposed by EU and other governments, I support the goals & believe private enterprise is the main way this world is going to get more resilient – but you get there through empowering everyone in an organization to innovate, not by imposing arbitrary checklists.

David Spear
David Spear
2 months ago

Wait, aren’t all ‘for-profit’ companies trying to make an impact with their product & service portfolio? Aren’t they all trying to make money for their shareowners? Aren’t all C-level execs hired to make an impact with their employees, customers, partners and shareowners? If not, then why did they get hired? I see this as more of a PR move than anything else.

Dick Seesel
Dick Seesel
2 months ago

As I understand the role at McDonald’s, the Chief Impact Officer is charged with a lot of “external relations” issues that none of the other “chiefs” wants to deal with. It feels like a good way to take a bloated bureaucracy and blow it up more.

In a retail context, the other operating heads — such as marketing, stores, merchandising, finance and operations — need to be totally conscious of environmental impact and social responsibility instead of creating a path to “outsource” those issues.

Jeff Sward
Jeff Sward
2 months ago

No, the answer is not adding another C-suite officer. The answer is evolving current roles to be able to deal with an evolving market. Yes, it’s all more complicated than it was just a couple of years ago. But the answer lies in investing in action on the ground, not expensive C-suite jobs. Current C-suite players might need a new lieutenant either in the office or in the field to help ferret out issues, but a whole new C-suite office could just as easily complicate things. Other officers could begin to think, “phew…not my job”. The new role could become a new silo, with an agenda in conflict with existing processes. And in fact, the new agenda will be in conflict with “the way we’ve always done it”. If the right people are already in C-suite they will be building their staff in recognition of the changes that need to be made. And if they aren’t, then the CEO can replace a C-suite player, not add to the turmoil by adding a player.

Joan Treistman
Joan Treistman
2 months ago

Reading the other comments makes me think I’m being naïve. But I look at the chief impact officer role as a pro-active arm vs the public relations position which is reactive. How much influence the chief impact officer has is up to the CEO and the rest of upper management, along with those who are supposed to implement. However, if this role is truly recognized and robust it can push awareness of the company’s positive initiatives and build equity. At the same time, it seems about time for companies to identify their need to pay attention to what in fact impacts the world around them.

Doug Garnett
Doug Garnett
2 months ago

I simply cannot imagine this making a significant impact (so to speak) on company effects. Unless these ideals are part of every job and every decision, they are merely a grand idea tacked onto the side of the corporation.

Worse, giving someone this title likely does unexpected harm as it relieves all other execs from the need to consider the whole world as they do business – thus making it more likely that damage will be done. An unexpected consequence common in corporations.

Brandon Rael
Brandon Rael
2 months ago

As ESG (environment, social, and governance) and CSR (corporate social responsibility), policies become more formalized and supported by executive mandates. It would be wise and strategic to have an executive in the Chief Impact Officer role and a supportive organization to execute these strategies.

Often during transformation work with clients, we have seen conversations around “what do we do about ESG or CSR” often arise. While the subsequent discussions are productive and outcome-driven, where organizations fail is on the execution side. Without a dedicated Chief Impact Officer and organization, these efforts will be de-prioritized due to other critical needs.

The emergence of a Chief Impact officer is another stage of the evolution of the retail and consumer industry operating model. Just as we have seen the emergence of Chief Digital Officers, Ecommerce, and Innovation organizations, this is just another step of the process.

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom
2 months ago

“There ought to be an officer for that” seems to be the corporate equivalent of the old saying “”There ought to a law for (against) that.” I disagree: officers should represent distinct areas of a company – production, legal, finance, etc.; the claimed areas of “impact” can readily be accommodated under this existing framework.

John
John
2 months ago

In my opinion, this is window dressing. If a company is truly committed to these issues, it shows up in their every day culture. It’s everyone’s responsibility, not a designated officer’s.

storewanderer
storewanderer
2 months ago

Short answer is no.

I am glad to see how this question is polling.

Despite all the noise in government about ESG and many consulting firms thinking it will be the next big thing for them from a revenue perspective I am just not on this bandwagon.

Operationally though if this ESG thing really takes off, they will need another executive to oversee it and communicate its results to whoever cares.

ScottJennings
ScottJennings
2 months ago

ESG Compliance Reporting Regulations are coming for public companies in the US in 2024, & are already be in place in other geos. Accurate operational Reporting on Sales & Inventory is already challenging enough for the typical retailer, a separate owner responsible for risk & compliance reporting, which includes ESG, at large public retailers makes sense.