Coke’s come up with yet another formula, but this time it’s doing away with an old one. Don’t worry, it’s not Coke Three or Coke Absolute Zero, but the Coca-Cola Global Community Connections. The company is reconfiguring its philanthropic activities and doing away with its corporate external affairs department. From my perspective, the news is good. I’ve felt for some time that Coca-Cola was more of a marketing company than anything else, even operating at a detriment to society (think developing nations) for profits and market share. Rumor even has it that in one developing country, Coca-Cola “hijacked” a local water source to supply its plant leaving the area’s population with no access to clean water. Say it ain’t so!

Coke’s new Global Community Connections department will focus on three nonprofit areas: water cleanliness and supply, recycling with an emphasis on sustainable packaging and fitness. I’m impressed. The company’s old areas of focus were education and diversity. Important issues, to be sure, but not particularly aligned with the issues related to the company’s business. According to Ingrid Saunders Jones, the former external affairs head and longtime charitable face of Coca-Cola, “Whereas, Corporate External Affairs had a primary focus in North America, GCC will leverage the Company’s corporate and local resources, on a global scale, to support the six operating groups”. Global reach for a global corporation. I like where this is headed, especially because for so long, companies gave in the countries with the power to fight back while violating moral and ethical standards abroad, in poor nations with no infrastructure but very cheap labor. Hopefully Coca-Cola’s move is the beginning of a new trend.

Dennis Young, Georgia State University’s director of the nonprofit studies program, said Coca-Cola’s philanthropic reorganization follows what other large public companies have done — closely aligning their nonprofit work with the for-profit company’s main business.

“Companies have found it really works,” he said. “They’re thinking about that whole area less as gift-giving and more like a partnership. It’s an effective corporate strategy.”

This quote is the key. Companies need to start thinking of themselves as part of a process and not an occasional attendant when the situation calls for it. Companies can no longer just peak their figurative heads into a society to see what’s up, and donate some money to abate fears or to fund a pet cause.

Coca-Cola’s new initiative will take through 2008 to implement, but the result should be more a concentrated and effective use of charitable dollars. This new strategy should be net positive for the company and the planet. Of course the effort is nowhere near what’s needed from a global corporate citizen but it’s a start. I hope this type of effort will help get us to a new form of capitalism the world can not survive without. Giving fits inherently into the category of “give a man a fish and he can eat for a day”. Financing for-profit social entrepreneurship, and aligning these ventures with a company’s core business, is the only way to raise bar across the global. Only then will we have taught a man to fish, hopefully only figuratively for the planet’s sake.

On Sunday night I had a conversation with a few people in my building about a couple of nearby homeless shelters. I’ve had the conversation before over the last few years but was engaged as new parties were involved. Two shelters were in question:

• The first could be one of the worst shelters in America. It has multiple code violations including fire, occupancy, safety, etc . . . In addition to housing people in need it houses the worst of the worst of the homeless population – the substance abusing criminals who will do anything but try to help themselves. It offers no programmatic services and forces people to sit through religious sermons to get food, which it allows outside the shelter, causing a giant mess to be created by people who are supposedly hungry but like to throw their food everywhere. But, the shelter also houses those who can’t find shelter anywhere else.
• The second could be one of the best shelters in America. It follows all the rules, institutes programs to help the less fortunate and is admired in the community. It wins awards, grants and helps people get back on their feet. But, if you are a career homeless person with no motivation to help yourself then it’s not the place for you.

The two shelters exists close physically but not philosophically. What each does to help the less fortunate in the community varies tremendously in detail. Each shelter’s efforts begs the question: at what point does society stop trying to help people who don’t want to be helped?

Clearly the mentally unstable, the victimized and the occasionally homeless should receive a helping hand. But, there are people out there who just want to coast by, getting a hot shower and a warm meal when they need recharging. Many of these people are harmless, just unmotivated. Some of them are criminals, and use shelters like the first one described as recharging centers. The main criticism of shelter one is that its operations enable the homeless, not allowing those who want help to gain the skills to function in society. But, they also allowing those who don’t want help to recharge enough to maintain their lifestyles, which sometimes include criminal action against the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who live close by.

Unlike some people I know, who so ignorantly believe everyone in this country has the same chance in life, I’m not naive enough to think that you are where you are because of your actions and no other reasons. People need help. The fortunate should help them. But at what cost? In the conversation that brought this piece about I was mildly criticized for not having compassion for the homeless. The criticism came before I explained my position and came from someone with heart, but much less familiarity with the situation at hand. It’s strife with religious and political posturing, an army of ignorant but compassionate supporters, and a religious zealot of a homeless advocate who uses the media to keep people who stand for accountability and responsibility at bay.

The situation hasn’t gotten better is a number of years. The haves have more and the have nots still have nothing. The debate on what to do goes on, and the person (in this case) who claims to want to help the most is doing the most harm. This holiday season, if you give or help with homeless causes please support the ones who truly help the less fortunate. Giving money to places that enable homelessness is like flushing money down the toilet. Only when support for the bad shelters dries up will support for the good ones rise tremendously.