Research Interests
Broadly, my research interest lies at the nexus of corporate social responsibility (i.e. Social Good) and global security. However at present I am exploring themes related to how such programs are incentivized and whether those drivers could be better managed at the government level, if at all.
Running parallel to my social good inquiries, I am also exploring the efficacy of diversity, equity, and inclusivity programs to gauge how effective they are at succeeding in their objectives. I posit here that most programs and their newly created leadership roles serve as a means to appease a politically sensitive workforce (especially in progressive states like California) without truly affecting institutional change.
That’s great Kyle, but what’s so special about Social Good anyway?
You could say that the reason why I’m so passionate about this topic is because I foresee the possibility of an even more diverse, equitable, and inclusive society if more companies strive to adopt some kind of social good mission for themselves regardless of whether they do it for their workforce or to serve the community at large.
Below are a few thematic questions I’m honing on an ongoing basis into more matured research questions.
Theme 1
Must Social Good find a way to align with economic incentives to become a reality?
The optics on social good initiatives varies greatly between corporate and government sectors. In corporate settings, these initiatives are typically non-revenue earning products or services that produce a positive image of the organization. Meanwhile initiatives put forth by the government to address a problem for an impacted demographic, are often times met with prejudice (internally and externally) as they are perceived to be Communist/Socialist in nature.
Theme 2
Would corporations offering a Social Good service to the public stand to benefit from separating their service into a non-profit subsidiary?
A large disparity between corporations and non-profits are access to talent and resources. Fortune 500 companies that offer a Social Good initiative to the public tend to scale their products or services much easier due to their access to talent and budgeting. However the reliability and commitment for these programs cannot be depended on if shareholders decide to sunset these programs to avoid operating at a loss.
Conversely, non-profit organizations that have a dedicated mission to these endeavors typically cannot innovate to the same scale because they lack resources and the talent. If corporations allow themselves to divest their Social Good initiatives into a non-profit affiliate or a subsidiary they control, would this lengthen the shelf life of these products and services while meeting new challenges at scale?
Is it in society’s benefit to keep wide reaching Social Good initiatives in the private sector domain due to growing antigovernmental conspiracies and the prevalence of misinformation?
The proliferation of misinformation and extreme, borderline dangerous partisan discourse spread throughout the Internet has greatly reduced the public’s trust in the government’s intentions to offer a Social Good. This has become evident in the public’s response distrust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the global pharmaceutical industry coming together to develop vaccines for administration at no charge to the public (through a special arrangement between the insurance, the manufacturers, and the federal government), at least 40% (citation needed) of the population has refused to be vaccinated for numerous reasons.
One might ask how reception of the vaccine would have been different had the government not stepped in to 1) make it free and widely accessible, and 2) throw full support behind urging Americans to get vaccinated. Among the demographic of individuals that do not trust the vaccine, many have been willing or shown interest in Regeneron’s expensive antibody cocktail (citation needed).
Theme 3
Theme 4
Are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity (DEI) programs and their respective leadership roles tasked with solving impossible objectives?
In an effort to address systemic racism discourse at the national level and cultivate a workforce culture of openness and equality, tech companies have developed DEI departments and hired new leadership roles to spearhead these initiatives. However due to a lack of clear objectives, subpar budgeting, and no direct reporting structure to a company CEO (citation needed), these missions seemingly are designed to accomplish very little outside of appeasing a politically correct workforce.