Can a business school course become a force for social good?

What happened when we trialled a ‘Buy One, Give One’ model in executive education?

For many people, the concept of ‘Buy One, Give One’ brings to mind companies that donate a pair of shoes or a meal each time a customer makes a corresponding purchase.

But what if the thing being donated was not a physical product?

What if it was education?

That was the question at the heart of a recent project conducted by Open University researcher Dr Ruth Dimes and a research team from the University of Auckland Business School. Could a ‘Buy One, Give One’ model be adapted so that when one organisation pays for executive development, another organisation that would not normally be able to access that opportunity benefits too?

The idea was simple. The reality was much more interesting.

Why we wanted to try something different

Business Schools offer access to expert knowledge, professional networks and leadership development opportunities. Yet these opportunities often come with a price tag that places them beyond the reach of many charities, community organisations and smaller enterprises.

We wanted to explore whether there was a way to broaden access without compromising the quality of the learning experience.

What did we do?

We trialled a pilot programme built around a ‘Buy One, Give One’ model. Under the model, donor organisations funded places on an executive education programme. Alongside their own participants, funded places were made available to leaders from resource-constrained recipient organisations.

Crucially, this was not a separate scholarship scheme. Everyone learned together in the same room, at the same time, as part of a shared learning experience. We called this learning experience Raranga, a Māori word meaning ‘to weave’. The name reflected our aim of bringing together people from different organisations and backgrounds, each with their own experiences and perspectives. By learning alongside one another, participants could share ideas, challenge assumptions and create new ways of thinking together.

The University of Auckland acted as the connector, bringing together organisations that might never otherwise have met and creating an environment where participants could learn from each other's diverse experiences and perspectives.

The pilot was funded by Juncture, a University of Auckland research centre exploring how business and the economy can better serve people and the planet. Juncture treats the challenges of capitalism as systems challenges, not people problems.

As researchers, we adopted an action research approach, allowing us to design, deliver, observe and reflect on the intervention as it unfolded.

A promising idea, but was it a "triple win"?

At the outset, we hoped the model might create value for three groups:

• Donor organisations
• Recipient organisations
• The University

In some respects, it succeeded.

Participants from donor organisations gained valuable leadership and management development. Many also appreciated the opportunity to contribute to a socially meaningful initiative.

Recipient organisations benefited from access to executive education that would otherwise have been difficult to obtain. Just as importantly, they gained exposure to professional networks and conversations often associated with larger organisations.

For the University, the project demonstrated a new way of combining educational provision with social impact.

However, our findings suggest that the story is more complex than a straightforward ‘triple win’.

The hidden influence of power

One of the strongest themes to emerge from the project was the role of power.

Different organisations entered the programme with different levels of resources, influence, connections and visibility. These differences shaped whose voices carried the most weight and who ultimately benefited most from the initiative.

Organisations with greater resources often had more influence over the development and direction of the programme.

Meanwhile, recipient organisations gained access to valuable learning opportunities, but they had less influence over how the intervention was designed. Although they benefited from new knowledge and contacts, the longer-term advantages of networking were less certain.

This does not mean the initiative failed. Rather, it highlights an important lesson: creating access is not the same as creating equality.

Simply bringing people together does not automatically remove the power imbalances that exist between them.

The University as a bridge-builder

One of the most encouraging findings was the role the University was able to play.

Universities occupy a unique position in society. They are trusted institutions that can connect groups with very different resources, goals and backgrounds.

In our project, the University acted as an intermediary between organisations that had resources to contribute and organisations that could benefit from access to learning opportunities.

This role went beyond delivering a course. It involved designing relationships, developing trust and creating a space where different perspectives could meet on more equal terms.

As universities continue to explore their civic mission, this bridging function may become increasingly important.

What have we learned?

Our experience suggests that ‘Buy One, Give One’ models have genuine potential within higher and executive education.

Education is different from many products associated with traditional ‘Buy One, Give One’ schemes. Knowledge, skills and professional development can generate lasting benefits for individuals and organisations alike.

Yet our findings also provide a note of caution.

If universities wish to use these models to create social impact, recipient organisations need to be involved in shaping programmes from the outset. Governance arrangements, programme design and evaluation processes should all be developed with equity in mind.

Otherwise, there is a risk that benefits will flow disproportionately to those who already possess the greatest resources and influence.

Looking ahead

Authors

Dr Ruth Dimes

Ruth is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting and Finance at The Open University. Her research focuses on sustainability, corporate reporting and how organisations can create value for society as well as shareholders. Before joining The Open University, she spent several years at the University of Auckland, where she taught in postgraduate and executive education programmes and led the Business Masters programme. Prior to her academic career, Ruth worked as a Chartered Accountant and consultant in the UK and Australia. She is passionate about making education more accessible and exploring innovative approaches that generate social impact.

Dr Claire Beach 

Claire is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the research centre ‘Juncture: Dialogues on Inclusive Capitalism’ at the University of Auckland. Her research focuses on how organisations and consumers make sense of sustainability and social change. She is particularly interested in how businesses communicate their sustainability journeys and how different groups work together to address environmental and societal challenges. Originally from The United States, Claire has experience across research, teaching and industry, and is passionate about exploring how business can help create more inclusive, responsible and sustainable futures.

Dr Billie Lythberg

Billie is known for transdisciplinary work that advances Māori and Pacific kaupapa through heterogeneous research philosophies and methodologies. As Associate Director of the research centre ‘Juncture: Dialogues on Inclusive Capitalism’, Billie is developing transdisciplinary projects and engagement events to explore inclusive capitalism and position the University of Auckland Business School as a research partner of choice for industry, policymakers, and community organisations. 

Dr Kirsty Williamson 

Kirsty is Acting Director for Executive and Professional Development at the University of Auckland Business School. Kirsty works closely with senior leadership and contributes to strategic initiatives and decision making to ensure the continuous improvement of programmes. She has a keen interest in teacher education and is a founding member of the Faculty's Peer Review of Teaching team; the review consultations afford a significant opportunity to discuss, share and disseminate effective pedagogical practice.