Great enterprises are those that dare to choose between difficult options, take the hard road and the long road, and bring ideals to life through exploration where 'even they themselves are not sure they can make it through.'

Recently, Yang Bin, Dean of the Institute for Sustainable Social Value at Tsinghua University, has been discussing AI on various occasions. As a promoter of university ethics education, he both welcomes and worries about the arrival of AI 鈥?he hopes AI can bring human well-being, yet fears it may weaken or even strip away human subjectivity, thereby creating a series of social problems. He has even questioned students in class for constructing sentences with AI as the subject followed by causative verbs and emotional verbs, because he believes this blurs the boundaries of human responsibility as the subject.

As an expert who began studying business ethics and corporate social responsibility early on, Yang Bin has found that AI is also redefining corporate social responsibility. The evolution of corporate philanthropy in China has moved from 'donation' to 'co-creation and co-embeddedness,' traversing a path from 'wealth giving back' to 'social value creation.' 'Corporate responsibility is upgrading to responsibility toward global society, toward the future, and toward human well-being,' Yang Bin said in an exclusive interview with China Philanthropist. In the AI era, he noted, the logic of corporate philanthropy has undergone profound changes 鈥?it is not only about evaluating the entire value chain along the time dimension, but also considering whether it will bear greater sustainability challenges or costs.

China Philanthropist: You have long studied corporate social responsibility, encountered many entrepreneurs, and later established an Institute for Sustainable Social Value. Why was there a need to establish such an institution?

Yang Bin: This has some connection to my personal research experience. Starting in 2003, Tsinghua University collaborated with scholars from Hosei University in Japan and Kyung Hee University in South Korea to evaluate corporate social responsibility practices in these three East Asian countries from multiple dimensions, publishing an annual China-Japan-Korea corporate social responsibility ranking. At the same time, more companies were encouraged to publish social responsibility reports and strengthen communication with all sectors of society. At the time, as the Chinese expert, I participated in the evaluation work from 2003 to 2008. The three countries share commonalities, but differences were also considerable. Japan and South Korea consistently scored low on gender-equal employment at the time, and after the rankings were published, they faced pressure from domestic companies. That was a rare opportunity for me to learn, compare, and draw lessons. Participating in that phase of work, I observed that China's WTO accession had a strong impact on promoting corporate social responsibility among Chinese enterprises. Because to join the global supply chain and sell products to global markets, companies faced enormous pressure from chain leaders and upstream and downstream players with stronger bargaining power. You began to notice that basic ethical stances and social responsibility performance were crucial to your non-market competitiveness. I was once invited as an academic expert to Walmart's Shenzhen headquarters to participate in their internal discussions. One outcome was the release of a consensus on building a responsible ecosystem. Walmart believed that through responsible procurement, it could serve as an important lever to drive the entire ecosystem to raise social responsibility thresholds and compel upstream supply chain enterprises to fulfill their social responsibilities. So when I summarized the four stages of Chinese corporate philanthropy, this period counts as the first stage. Its main feature was that as China opened up and enterprises entered global markets, social responsibility awareness was awakened under pressure. Although corporate actions at the time were not necessarily highly conscious, this was something they had to do to integrate into the global supply chain. It was in fact making up for lost lessons, addressing shortcomings, and educating enterprises and society. My own personal participation also made me realize that in awakening society's sense of responsibility and enterprises' sense of duty, the media has always played a very important and irreplaceable role. Consumers and law-abiding manufacturers support the media in doing some exposure and investigative reporting, but the pressure the media faces because of this is also considerable. Most media outlets have good intentions at their core. Without the media making this information public and forming public oversight, exerting some external pressure on enterprises, promoting corporate social responsibility might be much slower. By comparison, unlike developed countries in Europe and America, consumer-initiated lawsuits are not such an explicit or rapid driving force. From China's WTO accession to the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement, and in recent years the General Secretary's pioneering ecological civilization thought, China's consensus on sustainable development has grown stronger from top to bottom, and its capacity for action and speed of transformation are even greater than those of European countries. I believe this awareness is related to China's institutional advantages 鈥?the intensity of the three-year battle and full participation, the broad dissemination from top to bottom and from central to local levels across society all played a major role. It even makes me feel that we have produced a native generation of sustainable development 鈥?those who have received education on climate change and sustainable development since childhood, and have formed essential cognition and firm beliefs in their bones. Of course, globally, the challenges of sustainable development remain enormous, and the SDG targets are far behind. But in terms of social value, we still have considerable room for development.

Sustainable Social Value, abbreviated as SSV, with the second S emphasizing 'social.' But beyond the large society we have traditionally recognized, I usually particularly emphasize that there is also a small society worth attention 鈥?the small society within corporate organizations. I specifically mention this because when the good things your company does for the large society conflict with your behavior and cultural stance in this small society within your organization, it will truly raise questions about whether this company has consistency, or even integrity. Don't believe in any 'inside and outside are different.' Now everything is connected. Internal letters, internal handling, and so on will also very likely be externalized and become street gossip. Of course, in November 2024, Tsinghua University established the Institute for Sustainable Social Value, which has an even deeper meaning and reflects new characteristics of a new stage in philanthropy and social responsibility development. The institute's partner is Tencent. Tencent in 2019 incorporated 'User-Oriented, Technology for Good' into its mission and vision, and in 2021 specifically established a Sustainable Social Value Division. I understand this not as giving its original philanthropy sector a fancier name, but as starting from the real scenarios of 'what society truly needs' to seriously discover whether the company's own core capabilities can be applied to solve some long-standing social issues 鈥?the so-called To S. When tech companies do this, they can not only leverage their strengths to serve society, but also stimulate innovation, keep the company vibrant in long-term development, and deeply embed themselves in the organism of society. This process, I hope, can also be a more product-oriented mindset 鈥?I have also summarized a view that the people suited to doing these good things should demonstrate the skills of a product manager rather than the approach of public relations affairs. This is an important starting point for establishing the SSV Institute 鈥?to promote deeper integration between academia and industry, discover and summarize new concepts, new models, and new cases of social value innovation, promote more effective measures, spread the experiences of leading enterprises on a larger scale, and strengthen social consensus. Universities also have some advantages in being able to unite greater forces on larger international platforms and tell China's SSV story well. This is the origin of the institute.

China Philanthropist: From the perspective of social innovation, where do you think the main challenges lie?

Yang Bin: There are still many challenges, including how policies and regulations can keep up, how to bridge the gap between eastern and western regions, how to do good while promoting healthy corporate governance development, how philanthropy and social value innovation can support enterprises going global, and so on. Let me mention one challenge I personally focus on 鈥?that is the overall social atmosphere, how to increase tolerance for various corporate social innovations and also increase social diversity and co-creation. Doing social innovation must align with public opinion, yet public opinion is also dynamically changing and highly contextual. In this regard, simply seeking uniformity is easy, but it also limits the continuous emergence of distinctive innovations and the vitality of the whole society. I observe and think about this issue myself, and I also shared and discussed it with students in the SSV first class 鈥?how to make enterprises no longer fight alone, how to make these social responsibility managers gain more support within their enterprises. This is a serious challenge every corporate philanthropy practitioner faces, and also where capacity building needs to be continuously strengthened. In my sharing, I also specifically talked about how to mobilize their superiors through non-positional influence (Leading Up), and also the need for wiser outward leadership (Leading Outside). Outward is a very complex matter. When we complete some tasks that meet social needs, we actually also raise society's expectations for response. Many people have learned through hardship that if you can't do a good deed to the end, don't start it easily 鈥?this itself reflects your sense of responsibility. Behind this is psychology 鈥?people expect you to be consistent from beginning to end, consistent in words and deeds, consistent in heart and mouth. When you do good deeds, social expectations correspondingly rise, requiring you to do more next time to achieve a similar social response. If your actions weaken or only match the previous level, social satisfaction will decline, and you will feel wronged. This is the consequence of improper expectation management. Another challenge is evaluating the effectiveness of philanthropy and social value innovation. For everyone doing social philanthropy, if you cannot evaluate well and honestly build consensus with your shareholders, investors, and management team 鈥?this is foundational work, not decorative; strategic, not expedient 鈥?without consensus, you may lose your strategic and resource rear base. When encountering some turbulence, noise, or pressure, the social responsibility or philanthropy you have done will not only fail to be recognized and continuously valued, but may also be the first thing cut when company resources are tight. So we cannot treat some issues as public relations problems, keen on adding embellishments, issuing press releases, and being noticed by specific groups. We should especially value the long-term nature, strategic nature, and integration and synergy with core business of the philanthropy or social innovation departments within enterprises, continuously measure the tangible value they bring to the company, and continuously iterate and improve. In the long run, enterprises increasingly need the long-term trust the public grants them, and need the long-term belief of investors and organizational members in them. Another challenge comes from changes in the economic and international situation. Since last year, corporate donations have been in a state of bearing pressure against the wind, which has a lot to do with economic development and international politics. Currently, the international economic and political environment is becoming increasingly complex, posing many challenges for corporate philanthropy. When enterprises do philanthropy, they also need to consider whether this will bring positive factors or possibly create obstacles for their global expansion. For example, green energy and new energy vehicle companies face many non-tariff barriers when entering Europe. Under strict pressure, some original social philanthropy projects will also be questioned from various angles in their perspective.

China Philanthropist: Specifically, what value does philanthropy bring to enterprises?

Yang Bin: Trust, confidence, and belief 鈥?I think these three 'Xin' are very important for people engaged in social value innovation within organizations. Organizational members hope to go home and tell their friends, family, and children that they work at a very responsible company. This itself is a driving force that brings a sense of pride, and the sense of ownership in work also increases, no less than material incentives like bonuses. For investors, these three 'Xin' are also very important. I have observed that many new-generation entrepreneurs emphasize their concern for human well-being and social needs when raising angel investment and Series A funding. From the investor's perspective, especially when investing at the angel round, they value the entrepreneur as a person more than the specific project details. If investors find that the entrepreneur has deep care, concern, and compassion for society, they will feel that he has the right values when looking at the world, will be more resilient when facing difficulties, and will be more sustainable in the long run. The three 'Xin' also work the same way for the new generation of consumers. You will find that the younger generation has more progressive views on climate issues, gender issues, employee rights issues, and education and growth issues. They also care more about whether the products they buy have stains in these areas and whether they have positive stances. Once a company has a scandal, no one will buy its products anymore. And when certain products express progressive stances 鈥?for example, when source enterprises show stronger concern for the dairy industry and natural resources 鈥?it will attract the new generation of young people to pay more for their beliefs. I believe the three 'Xin' are something that practitioners engaged in social value innovation or corporate philanthropy need to understand more deeply. When I discuss leadership topics in class, I distinguish between the traditional perspective of control and management and the leadership perspective that encourages innovation, enhances vitality, and psychological safety. What our work most needs to awaken is not others' compliance based on rules and procedures, but others' willingness to join willingly because of your mission, vision, and values.

China Philanthropist: You just mentioned the topic of leadership. I noticed that when you speak about leadership on many occasions, you repeatedly use the word 'co-creation.' Last year at the Tsinghua SSV Scholars Program first class, your topic was 'Co-creative Leadership.' Why does 'co-creation' carry such weight in your mind? For enterprises, what counts as truly achieving 'co-creation'?

Yang Bin: If there is one keyword that I hope carries more historical and cultural penetration in promoting corporate philanthropy for good and gains recognition and practice from more corporate partners, it is 'co-creation.' Last year at the Tsinghua SSV Scholars first class, my topic was 'Co-creative Leadership' 鈥?in this era, the most resilient force is not strength, but 'co-creation.' SSV's co-creation emphasizes 'empathizing with social pain points, integrating with core business, co-creating with internal and external partners, and advancing together with long-term human well-being.' Enterprises vary in size. They need to learn to find their co-creative ecological niche through 'capability 脳 pain point 脳 love,' acting according to capacity while doing their best. It is not about everyone rushing to do the same thing, but each doing things anew and for the long term in the position where they are most skilled, most passionate, and most needed. Large enterprises should not be arrogant; they should have the mindset and responsibility of a 'good engine,' pursuing openness and calmness. Openness is very valuable 鈥?the more people use it together, the better it works, and the process of use itself optimizes it, producing a network iteration effect. Calmness is very beautiful 鈥?the beauty of a good engine is that no matter how capable it is, it does not steal the show or replace the protagonist in speaking and acting. 'Benefiting all things without contending' 鈥?letting wave after wave of do-gooders stand at the forefront, while the large enterprise itself willingly serves as a supporter and promoter. This is the most admirable posture for large enterprises in the co-creative ecosystem in my mind. Moreover, even friendly competitors with a compare-and-catch-up relationship in business can also co-create at the level of social value innovation. Whoever has experience should not stand out alone or race far ahead, but should be willing to share, learn from, and promote it, with more of an industry public goods mindset of paving roads and building bridges. Of course, co-creation also has issue areas more suitable for starting, roughly showing five characteristics: First, public issues with strong non-competitiveness that cannot be solved by a single entity: basic scientific research, climate change and dual carbon, public health, emergency disaster relief. Second, those requiring cross-industry and cross-sector capability combinations: AI for aging, accessibility, fraud prevention and anti-trafficking, rural talent revitalization 鈥?tech companies provide tools, industry organizations provide scenarios, local institutions provide rootedness. Third, those with long cycles, requiring steadiness, and with little applause 鈥?what I call 'Unspoken Voice': precisely because the cycle is long and returns are slow, co-building and sharing, and ecological relay are needed. Fourth, those with global common denominators: global poverty reduction, inclusive education, new education transformation in the AI era 鈥?on one hand transcending differences, and on the other directly serving the legitimacy of Chinese enterprises going global. Finally, those with strong locality and narrative: going-global legitimacy and supply chain ESG 鈥?social value is a dynamic target (a moving target), with temporal variability and cultural differences. You need to be a good neighbor, a good 'citizen,' not an outside big boss, nouveau riche, or monopolizer. Tell the story of 'co-creation' rather than 'I come, I am great, you are far behind; I handle making money, you handle envy.' Technological leadership indeed determines whether you can go, but only legitimacy and the success of co-creative narratives can determine whether you can stay and live well. Co-creation is a highly skilled job. This is why I repeatedly say that today's social responsibility leaders should be more like co-creative leaders and product managers within enterprises, rather than firefighting captains or almsgiving charity boys.

China Philanthropist: Will great companies emerge in the AI era? By what standards should a great company be measured?

Yang Bin: Profitability, success, excellence, and sustainability are all goals companies pursue. Being respected and making people willing to work there are also angles for evaluating a company. When it comes to 'great,' I think what is quite different is that it includes moral evaluation 鈥?the company's values and behavior have moral appeal and form a positive moral influence on society. When I spoke to the first cohort of Tsinghua SSV students last year, I mentioned that when people speak of the 'great' in great entrepreneurs, it not only represents the realization of economic value on a larger scale, but also represents recognition of a higher level of social consensus, often crossing organizations, industries, cycles, countries, and different regional cultures. This is a very high pursuit. As an aside, we should also guard against social consensus being a double-edged sword 鈥?it can not only build high walls and spread a good name, but if mishandled or improperly managed, it can also backfire. So many entrepreneurs are unwilling to appear too high-profile, or say that while the business can be scaled back somewhat, the person should be more humble. In my own view, authentic leadership remains the core. The older generation of entrepreneurs generally has the trait of pressing forward under burden. Pressing forward under burden has a great aspect, related to the historical stage they went through and their life experiences. Compared with the younger generation of entrepreneurs, they may be less relaxed, with more of a hard-working flavor; that pure kind of love and enjoyment is not so natural. As we enter the AI era, many original innovations and disruptive innovations occur among people and atmospheres with a higher sense of relaxation. We always talk about curiosity, but actually responsibility is not a component of curiosity 鈥?playfulness is the source of curiosity. We see among the next generation of innovators that more and more scientists are starting businesses 鈥?note here I say scientists, not old men with white beards; many are young people. Many young scientific workers' innovations come from the outset from a stronger belief in the future well-being of humanity. They greatly enjoy solving problems in the innovation process that humanity has not solved for a long time, allowing a broader range of human needs to be met, and feeling closely connected to this Earth and human destiny. This change in entrepreneurs' starting points, sense of mission, and style is happening, and accompanying it are proactive and responsible expressions in the DNA of these young entrepreneurs and companies. Relaxation and greatness are not contradictory. Narratives do not all need suffering to forge greatness. Innovation needs to be more diverse and more differentiated. People who like Apple evaluate it as a great company. Even now, people still miss Steve Jobs, considering him remarkable and a great innovator. The reason geniuses are so celebrated is that they are not easy to produce, nor are they planned and cultivated. Many times it requires opportunity and also emergence. I am very confident that China is producing more young companies moving toward greatness. Whether a company is great is verified through long-term action, not proclaimed by the CEO. A company's purpose is not decided by executives in a meeting, but detected by the public from the company's long-term performance. So if a company has a deep purpose, it needs to be verified again and again through actions involving real money and enduring ups and downs. Once your words and actions diverge, the meaning structure you hang up high will collapse on the spot 鈥?in fact, the higher it is hung, the harder it falls. Great enterprises are even more those that dare to choose between difficult options, take the hard road and the long road, and bring ideals to life through exploration where 'even they themselves are not sure they can make it through.' There are also times of torment when they disagree with peers and public opinion, and ultimately proving that the minority was on the right path also involves some luck. If you want to become a great enterprise, you must ask yourself whether you dare to do this.

Author: He Bin

Sina Statement: This message is reproduced from a Sina partner media outlet. Sina.com publishes this article for the purpose of transmitting more information and does not mean it agrees with its views or confirms its description. The article content is for reference only and does not constitute investment advice. Investors operate at their own risk based on this.