Shaping Our Destiny – Exponentially

Karen MorrisBy: Karen A. Morris, Board Member, The Global Sourcing Council and Chair, GSC Women’s Empowerment Committee



Editor’s Introduction

There are many ways we assess the impact of robotics, in particular the way it is changing the sourcing workforce landscape for providers and suppliers. Our founding Board Member, the innovation strategist Karen Morris, provides unique insights into the paradox we face as a global community.
The fact is that June, my great grandmother, was a computer. The fear is that my son is not. Ours is not a cyborg-mutation story, although that fate may await my great grandchildren.

In 1924, “computer” was a job description. Computers, mostly women, tallied and tabulated numbers in neatly inked rows – a repetitive, robotic task 9 hours a day. An exhausting multiplication.

In 2014, June’s great-great-grandson enjoys great, great computing power. In a single device, he wields more computational capacity than the rocket that put a man on the moon. An extraordinary multiplication. And on the day you read this, our planet will multiply its computational prowess a thousand-fold. An exponential multiplication. For our children this is almost a shruggoffable statistic. These natives of a datafied, sensor-strewn world have no angst about the algorithms that know them taste to toe. My son rejoices that I-Robot’s Rumba cleans his (and several million other) floors.

The fear is that robots will one day wipe the floor with him, in the job market at least.

Computing Power

Immense computational power, inestimable troves of data, dissilient progress in robotics, advanced and inexorably advancing artificial intelligence, digital proliferation and combinatorial innovations in bio’ and nano’ technology together with 3D manufacturing, and more and more and more…what immortal hand or eye dare frame thy fearful synergy? Or should our mortal eye see the technologies we have framed as amazing, incredible tools in our human hands?

The fact is these science-fictional phenomena will drive my son’s car, or one he pools, translate his speech, locate his answers, do his tax returns, answer his insurance queries, perform the due diligence when his company is sold, replace a lost limb or organ, and diagnose his health. Eventually they will do all that we imagine and much that we can’t yet. Technologies, in short, will coalesce into a perpetual platform for wondrous innovation and will delete forever certain jobs.

The fear is here.

We have been there before. From stone hand axe and stick as plough to plume and printing, boat and bullet, how we shape our tools shapes us. But of course the really disruptive technology, the innovation that changed the course of history to a degree never seen before or since… until now…was James Watt’s combinatorial reinvention of the steam engine around 1775-6.

“Technology is not destiny. We shape our destiny.”
– Eric Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee

Watt catalyzed the Industrial Revolution; although the steam revolution took twenty years or so to unfold, in the words of anthropologist Ian Morris “it was, nonetheless, the biggest and fastest transformation in the history of the world.” What steam started, uncoupling energy generation from the mere muscles of man and beast, led to factories and mass production, to railways and mass transportation, to an unprecedented capacity for human societies “to master their physical environment to get things done.” As Morris phrased it, the transformational significance of our ability to generate massive amounts of mechanical power “made a mockery of all the drama of the world’s earlier history”.

Technological Propellants

The Industrial Revolution has been described as mankind’s First Machine Age, the first time that human progress was propelled primarily by technological innovation. And propelled it was, leading to a further explosion in technological advances in the late and early Twentieth Century dubbed by some economic historians the Second Industrial Revolution. Progress brought prosperity but not for everyone. Not at first.

Ned Ludd, a militant textile worker, led English mill workers displaced by automated looms to attack mills and machineries; similar uprisings occurred on the Continent of Europe. Clog- wearing (sabos) workers also destroyed the machines menacing their livelihoods. The former entered our lexicon with the word Luddite, the latter gave us sabotage. Not only workers but economists too expressed their fears through the 19th Century and beyond that automation would ultimately prejudice workers’ jobs and pay.

In oversimplified terms, these fears went unrealised in the long run albeit after a brutally exploitative start. Technology advances and increases in labor productivity in the last two centuries did benefit workers enabling higher wages and buoying the real value of those wages through falling prices. Labor productivity and private employment grew in tandem and labor compensation rose alongside the profits, dividends and capital gains accruing to capital providers. Living standards improved. Until the last dozen years. The same decade or so that has seen such exponential digital technology developments.

The decade we describe as initiating mankind’s Second Machine Age, one as ineluctably transformational as the first (even if wage gains have been lower than productivity gains since the 1980’s). Since 2000, a strange disparity has emerged. In the USA, corporate profits have risen 100 percent but median household income, adjusted for inflation has not. The fact is, it has fallen from $55,986 to $51,017. Over this same period, corporate profits as a share of gross domestic product more than doubled, rising from six to eleven percent. Employee compensation as a proportion of gross domestic product declined by four percent.

Robotic handshakeThis is not a U.S. monopoly. Wages have flat-lined across the developed world with real-pay average rises at 0.2% last year. In certain rich economies other than the USA, workers are also now earning less than in 2007, for example Italy, the U.K. and Japan. Asia and Eastern Europe have seen 6% pay growth whereas Africa and Latin America averaged barely 1%. Workers share of economic growth has also shrunk in China, Mexico and Turkey.

The fear is that automation is to blame. It’s not just that automation is doing more; it’s doing what we thought it never would. Only ten years ago, Frank Levy and Richard Murnane’s “The New Division of Labor” proffered insights into the divisions between human and digital work. We had reason to be confident back then that certain things could be done well by computers, such as rule-based applications, however complex. We saw IBM’s Big Blue trounce Gary Kasparov at chess in 1997. And yet, low-level sensorimotor skills like kicking a ball and high-level complex communication eluded the machine. Autonomous cars crashed, robots stumbled on steps, translations were awful. As the roboticist Hans Moravec explained: “It is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult-level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers, and difficult or impossible to give them the skills of a one year-old when it comes to perception and mobility.”

This dichotomy, known as Moravec’s paradox, suggested that high-level reasoning was in the purview of computers; however, ordinary skills based on our human capacity for pattern recognition, that require sensing the physical world and navigating the body through it, would rest securely in the human domain. What a difference a decade makes. Autonomous cars, like Google’s and sensing automatons like Rethink Robotic’s Baxter are piercing the paradox. Computers and robots are on an aggressive trajectory to qualify ever more often and ever more competently as substitutes for human labor. Must you be a Luddite to be worried that this may sabotage rather than sustainable human progress?

Measuring People’s Well-Being

The European Union in concert with The Conference Board and Cornell University convened a symposium last autumn of economists and financiers to interrogate the relationship between evolutions in technology and employment depletion or creation. The experts were unanimous in their conclusions. No, just kidding, but I had you for a moment. We do not have, some argued, sufficient understanding of the nexus between job losses and automation. It is hard to decipher causation from correlation.

There are other contributory factors such as globalisation and work relocation and the seemingly inexorable decline in organised labor. The critical question is whether we should cleave to the convention that increased productivity remains an apposite proxy for people’s economic health. In a 2009 report, economists Amartya Sen of Harvard University, Jean-Paul Fitoussi of the Paris Institute of Political Studies and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University argued “the time is ripe for our measurement system to shift emphasis from measuring economic production to measuring people’s well-being”.

The fact is that my sons’ and your daughters’ career choices will be changed dramatically by technology, even more than ours have. And our experience has not been trivial. Ask a secretary, a tool-cutter, a switchboard operator, a manual bookkeeper. There has been a persistent decline in so-called routine jobs since computers entered the fray in the 1980s and the trend is accelerating. From 2001 to 2011, 11% of routine jobs in the USA vanished. Recent research from the University of Oxford (Frey and Osborne) suggests that over 700 professional categories are vulnerable to complete substitution by automation. They include loan officers, stock analysts, check-out assistants, tax preparers, paralegals, taxi-drivers, locomotive engineers, even animal breeders.

The 700 will multiply. A disconcerting multiplication. Indeed, the oracular prediction of Carl Frey’s and Michael Osborne’s study puts 47 per cent of American jobs at high risk of automation in the coming years. If this is even a remotely correct approximation for the United States, what does it portend for the destination countries to which “low skill” US jobs were off-shored over the last quarter century and for their economies and employment levels? The fact is that these routine and structured functions are especially susceptible to automation and the corresponding fear is the devastating impact this would have on those countries’ workforce.

Nothing “must be” unless we allow it.

Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology anatomize with acuity the facts and fears swirling around the impacts of digital technologies in their important and provocative book “The Second Machine Age”. The authors do not retreat from dark diagnoses that, without action and change, many will continue to lose out to technology and that all of us are exposed to the risks inherent in our ever more complex and interlinked technological infrastructure. Nor do they fear a technological dystopia. Serendipitously for this December issue of The Source, the authors borrow from Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” citing as metaphor Scrooge’s question to the Ghost of Christmas Future: “Is this what must be or what might be?” With ebullience, they urge us to take responsibility for what happens now. Nothing “must be” unless we allow it. In the authors’ aphorism “Technology is not destiny. We shape our destiny.”

People cause economic growth by rearranging resources, machines included, to increase their value. Whether it’s my great, great grandmother’s generation or my son’s or ours, every generation fears the impact on growth of limited resources and the unintended, adverse consequences of technology. Yet, to paraphrase loosely the economist Paul Romer, every generation underestimates our potential for finding new ideas and we consistently fail to grasp how many ideas remain to be discovered; if we grasped it, we would compute that possibilities do not merely add up, they multiply. Leaving us to realise an optimistic multiplication for human computers.

About the Author: Karen Morris is a strategic advisor to national and multinational companies. She is also a frequent speaker and writer on innovation and leadership at global forums and conferences around the world.

Sustainable Investing Advances in the United States

Voorhes  M100x100By: Meg Voorhes, Director of Research and Operations, SIF Foundation

Sustainable, responsible and impact investing—investing for long-term competitive financial returns and positive social impact—is advancing in the United States, according to the US SIF Foundation’s latest Report on US Sustainable, Responsible and Impact Investing Trends.

Every two years since 1995, the US SIF Foundation has measured the size and scope of the sustainable, responsible and impact investing (SRI) field through a major survey of US money managers and institutional asset owners.

From 2001 through 2012, our surveys showed that assets managed according to SRI strategies essentially kept pace with the overall market of professionally managed assets in the United States, accounting for a fairly consistent 10-12 percent share of the whole.

Significant Findings in 2014 Report

In 2014, however, sustainable investing took a significant leap forward. The 2014 edition of the Report, released in November, documented:

  • $6.20 trillion in US-domiciled assets as of January 1, 2014, held by 480 institutional investors, 308 money managers and 880 community investment institutions that apply environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria in their investment analysis and portfolio selection, and
  • $1.72 trillion in US-domiciled assets at the start of 2014 held by 202 institutional investors or money managers that filed shareholder resolutions on ESG issues from 2012 through 2014.

USIF 2014 Report
After eliminating double-counting for assets involved in both strategies (or held by money managers on behalf of institutional investors), the overall total of SRI assets was $6.57 trillion—a 76-percent increase over the $3.74 trillion identified in sustainable investing strategies at the outset of 2012.

As a result, nearly 18 percent of all investment assets under professional management in the United States today are held by institutions or money managers that consider ESG issues in selecting investments across a range of asset classes, or file shareholder resolutions on ESG issues at publicly traded companies.

This growth is largely driven by demand from a range of actors from individuals who invest in mutual funds that seek companies with good labor and environmental practices to public pension plans that have encouraged companies in which they invest to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to factor climate change into their strategic planning.

Indeed, of the 119 money managers who responded to a survey question on why they offer ESG or SRI products, the top factor—cited by 80 percent—is client demand. More than 70 percent of the money managers responding to this question also said they considered ESG factors in order to fulfill their mission (or their clients’), to improve returns and to manage risk.

Assets to which institutional owners apply ESG criteria now
total $4.04 trillion, up 77 percent since the start of 2012

Since 2012, numerous money managers have introduced funds that consider various ESG factors or begun incorporating ESG criteria in existing products. From 2012 to 2014, for example:

  • the assets managed by money managers that consider environmental criteria in portfolio selection grew from $240 billion to $2.9 trillion—a more than tenfold increase,
  • the number of mutual funds considering one or more ESG factors grew from 333 with $641 in assets, to 456 with $1.92 trillion in assets,
  • the assets of mutual funds considering human rights issues grew from $32 billion to nearly $364 billion,
  • the assets of mutual funds considering labor issues expanded from $37 billion to $340 billion, and
  • the mutual funds and other investment vehicles that consider climate change issues grew from 280 with $134 billion in assets, to 325 vehicles with $276 billion in assets.

Institutional Asset Owners Emphasize ESG

Reinforcing the money managers’ nod to client demand, the US SIF Foundation found increased emphasis on ESG factors by institutional asset owners such as public pension funds, foundations, educational endowments and religious institutions. The assets to which institutional owners apply ESG criteria now total $4.04 trillion, up 77 percent since the start of 2012. Many of these institutions—with assets collectively totaling more than $2.6 trillion–avoid investments in companies that do business in Sudan or other terrorist or repressive regimes. Many, too, restrict investments in tobacco-related companies or scrutinize portfolio companies on such factors as executive pay, fair employment and climate change.

In addition, from 2012 through 2014, more than 200 money managers and institutional investors, representing $1.7 trillion in assets, filed hundreds of resolutions at portfolio companies on a range of environmental, social and governance issues. Through these efforts, investors have persuaded hundreds of companies to exercise better oversight of their political spending and lobbying, to disclose and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen their fair employment policies.

In sum, through their investment policies and actions, US investors increasingly are spelling out the issues that matter to them in assessing corporate responsibility.

About the Author: Meg Voorhes is Director of Research and Operations for US SIF. Before joining US SIF in 2008, Meg directed environmental, social and governance research for RiskMetrics Group’s Financial Research and Analysis division. She spent much of her career at the Investor Responsibility Research Center where she directed research for institutional investors and corporate clientele on environmental, human rights and other social issues raised by shareholders at U.S. companies and specialized in issues related to multinational investment and corporate responsibility in South Africa.

She is the author or co-author of several US SIF Foundation publications, including its biennial Report on Sustainable and Responsible Investing Trends in the United States.

For more information on US SIF Foundation:

The UN Post-2015 Development Agenda

PatriciaChaves100x100By: Patricia Chaves, Senior Sustainable Development Officer UNDESA – Division for Sustainable Development



Kenya and Ireland to Lead Intergovernmental Consultations

The United Nations is preparing to embark on the challenging journey to define an ambitious, inclusive, integrated and transformative post 2015 development agenda to be adopted by a Summit of Heads of State and Government in September 2015.

The Permanent Representatives of Kenya and Ireland to the United Nations, two very skillful and seasoned diplomats, have been appointed by the President of the General Assembly as co-facilitators to lead “open, inclusive and transparent” consultations on the new agenda. In the United Nations context, these words carry high expectations of clear modalities of participation, ample opportunities for exchanges of views and commitment to reach outcomes by consensus. Ownership from all UN Member States of the outcome of this intergovernmental process will be fundamental for the successful impact of the new agenda. As any veteran in UN affairs will attest, this is not an easy task.

The aim: an agenda to ensure the eradication of poverty and
the achievement of sustainable development by 2030.

The co-facilitators have prepared a “food for thought”[1] document, outlining their proposals for modalities and dates for the intergovernmental negotiations, working methods, and scope for the substantive consultations. The co-facilitators are also encouraging Member States to offer proposals on themes for the interactive dialogues to be held during the three day Summit in 2015.

It is the aim of the process to reach agreement on an ambitious and transformative agenda which would ensure the eradication of poverty and the achievement of sustainable development by 2030.

It is also envisioned that the outcome document to be agreed by Member States during the negotiations and which Heads of State and Government will adopt at the September 2015 Summit will have four main components: 1. A declaration; 2. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), targets and indicators; 3. Means of Implementation and an enhanced Global Partnership; and 4. A framework for reviewing progress and monitoring implementation.

The Secretary General has been requested to prepare a report synthetizing the full range of inputs from intergovernmental processes since the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012 or Rio+20. The Secretary General synthesis report[2], which will be considered as an important input of the negotiations, offers his vision of six elements to help “frame and reinforce the universal, integrated and transformative nature of a sustainable development agenda and ensure that the ambition expressed by Member States in the outcome of the Open Working Group on the sustainable development goals translates, communicates and is delivered at the country level”.

There have been concerns that the 17 Goals and 169 targets that the Open Working Group agreed to propose to the General Assembly could present challenges in practical and actual implementation at the country and global levels. The Secretary General hopes that his six proposed elements (people, dignity, prosperity, justice, partnership and planet, in no particular order), as indicated in the figure below, will serve as an integrated “set of principles, that applied together, can bring about a truly universal transformation of sustainable development”.

Source: UN Secretary General’s Synthesis Report,  Advanced unedited copy, released 4 December 2014

Source: UN Secretary General’s Synthesis Report, Advanced unedited copy, released 4 December 2014

What to Expect in the Coming Months?

The proposed schedule of intergovernmental consultations for 2015 is quite intense. Sessions have been arranged to take place sometimes twice a month from January to July 2015 at the UN Headquarters. A first draft of the outcome document will be shared with delegations in early January 2015.

Two informal consultations to elicit further views from Member States have been scheduled on December 3 and 16, 2014. Further clarity from delegations on organizational and substantive aspects of the negotiations will be expected during these sessions.

Arrangements may need to be advanced to ensure close interaction with other processes having a bearing in the post 2015 intergovernmental negotiations. A Third Conference on Financing for Development is scheduled to take place in July 2015 with expectations that financial needs, requirements and sources to implement the envisioned sustainable development goals will be addressed. Some countries have indicated their interest to address all means of implementation for the post 2015 development agenda at that Conference, which may include the issue of technology facilitation and the shaping of a future Global Partnership for enhanced international cooperation.

Negotiations on a climate change agreement to be decided in Paris in late 2015 will also be unfolding during next year. Some member states have expressed their interest for the post 2015 negotiations to follow up with the climate change process to allow for synergies and complementarities between the two processes while respecting the distinct character of the climate change negotiations.

The UN system is ready to support the intergovernmental negotiations when technical materials, dedicated advice and specialized briefings are requested by Member States to facilitate their discussions and agreements.

For now, comprehensive preparations by members of delegations, civil society actors and the UN system are taking place to start negotiations in full force in January 2015. The world is watching and expecting robust political will to advance an ambitious and transformational agenda.

About the Author: Patricia Chaves is currently a Senior Sustainable Development Officer at the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. She has 20 years of in-depth knowledge and experience in international policy development and policy making. As a member of the UN Secretariat’s team servicing the Rio+20 Conference (Brazil – 2012), Ms. Chaves was instrumental in the conceptualization and organization of the Partnerships Forum at that Conference which is considered the largest conference ever convened by the United Nations.

Before joining the United Nations, Ms. Chaves was a career Foreign Service officer of the government of Costa Rica.



Editor’s Note: Positive Enterprise

By: JoDeen Urban, Editor In Chief, The Source

The aspiration that as a global community we will leave the world a better place figures prominently in our collective psyche. Impact Investing is many things and at its heart is the compact that governments, companies and investors will collaborate towards this end. Acts of social and environmental conscience, executed in good faith, backed by sound financial reasoning with the expectation of profit – an ethos evidenced by the growing momentum and mainstreaming of impact investing.

Impact investors actively seek to place capital in businesses, nonprofits and funds that can harness the power of positive enterprise. These investors are primarily distinguished by their intentions to address social and environmental challenges. In contrast, practitioners of Socially Responsible Investing also include negative (avoidance) criteria as part of their investment decisions as discussed by our GSC Chair in her opening commentary of this issue.

Impact investing is on the rise and its relevance is undisputed.

According to the Global Impact Investment Network (GIIN) “Impact Investments” are investments made into companies, organizations, and funds with the intention to generate measurable, beneficial social or environmental impact alongside a financial return. Impact investments can be made in both emerging and developed markets, and target a range of returns from below-market to above-market rates, depending upon the circumstances. In this description, it is important to acknowledge that governments and global leaders are also at the forefront, not just providing their advocacy of this movement but actively engaging in the solution-making process.

In this month’s issue several prominent companies, a leading foundation, a rural sales and service company with microfinance roots, and individual contributors weigh-in on this topic. Each one has enriched the discourse on this subject, elevated the end-state vision and contributed to the creation of a financially inclusive and environmentally safer world. Whether it is Sutherland Global Services, Accion, US SIF Foundation, Frontier Markets, or our Board correspondent reporting this month from the UK, a common message is stressed – impact investing is on the rise and its relevance among clients, investors and the international capital markets is undisputed.

We encourage you to read each insightful, thought-provoking article as they reaffirm the power of the individual, the power of allied action, and the power of impact investing.

We welcome contributors to this publication. Please share your insight and opinions at, or contact me directly at

JoDeen Urban
Editor In Chief

JoDeen is an independent management consultant working with established companies as well as start-ups on strategy, organizational capability and business model innovation.


A Two-Tiered Approach to Impact Investment Strategies

Essley Jay100x100
By: Jay Essley,
Director of Global Client Engagement, Sutherland Global Services



Impact Sourcing and Social Investment

At first glance the word “investment” typically invokes thoughts of fiscal capital spent in order to receive future financial gain, whether in profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value. However, equally as important in the definition is the expenditure of time, effort, and resources in order to effectuate the desired outcome or goal. For Sutherland, it is the marriage of both concepts that ultimately defines our impact sourcing and social investment strategy.

It is no secret that every dollar of investment in a charitable or social mission is only as good as the effort behind the cause. The question, “what will we get for our dollar,” is almost more relevant when discussing social programs. At least with monetary investments for financial gain the goal is simple: increase above and beyond from the principle amount you put in. However, with charitable and social investments the goals are often subjective and vary depending on the cause. Forcing a definitive roadmap for where each dollar goes, and what each dollar accomplishes in the world of social impact is the key to a successful return on investment.

Prudence dictates that an analysis of the force multiplier on an impact investment is of paramount importance. Will the investment be spent in the right places? How many lives will be impacted? What will the impact be? What result will be generated from each dollar given? From a corporate standpoint, these are the types of questions that we must ask ourselves prior to deciding on which social causes and programs to financially support.

Without proper execution by motivated and competent resources,
an investment for social impact slips into the muddy waters and
can become mired in risk and potential failure.

As most of you reading this have probably experienced, simply funding a charitable cause or giving money to benefit a social program does not necessarily guarantee a positive outcome. Just like financial investments for profit, social ones are not immune to risk or failure, even if the intentions are all coming from the right place. With that said there are ways to manage associated risks and increase the odds that the investment reaches its full potential and impact.

Increasing the Odds for Success

Sutherland takes a two-tiered approach when analyzing potential impact sourcing investments. First, capital expenditures may be required to initially fund a project or program but the crucial investment is the human element that follows. Without proper execution by motivated and competent resources, an investment for social impact slips into the muddy waters and can become mired in risk and potential failure.

One solution to increase the chances of impact sourcing investment success is to maintain control, or at least oversight, on the entire project with input or assistance from strategic partners if necessary. This is by no means a criticism of the hundreds, if not thousands, of amazing social programs and sourcing projects in existence but merely an observation based on past experience. Sutherland certainly does not advocate the abandonment of regular charitable and social giving but rather a divestiture of your CSR portfolio to also include some home-grown efforts.

Allow me to provide a real time example. Over the past few months Sutherland made the decision to expand our hallmark CSR project from its existing locations in India and the Philippines to Jamaica. The Community Technology Center program, CTC as it’s called, provides free digital literacy training and certification to the community at large, focusing on vulnerable and underserved areas. The first step was to assemble a team of individuals whose experience and motivation could provide the necessary “effort investment”. This was followed by the capital investment through corporate funds for the required facility space and related assets needed to offer the program.

CTC Jamaica

The Community Technology Center in Jamaica

After the initial set-up was completed, we next leveraged our strategic partnerships. Microsoft generously provides the software needed and the certification curriculum and local NGOs and community groups provide access to a student pool. With all that in place the local team of Sutherland human capital was able to take over and get up and running. We are proud to say that as of right now a soft launch has already begun and Sutherland is now impacting the lives of many people in Kingston by empowering them with a free, basic digital education.

The Sutherland strategy is only one answer of many when it comes to social impact investments but it is one that we have found to be effective, especially when talking about the CTC program. Our success with the CTC program was borne out of trial by error and years of tweaking the model. While we are proud to highlight this program and the awards it has generated, the real reward is the impact it has had on tens of thousands of lives.

In closing, Sutherland invites you to join the worthy cause of worldwide digital literacy. Imagine the number of lives that would be impacted if hundreds or thousands of other socially responsible companies of all sizes invested their time, effort, and capital into this program as well. To that end we have created a “cookbook” of sorts with a recipe that outlines the steps to create your own CTC center and operate autonomously. We encourage you to leverage our experience, successes, and most importantly the roadblocks we faced. Excuse the financial pun but this is an impact investment that is sure to produce a return and we have the prospectus to get you there. Please feel free to reach out and we would be more than happy to assist in your jumpstart.

About the Author: Jay Essley is the Director of Global Client Engagement at Sutherland Global Services where his day to day responsibilities focus on the negotiation of commercial contracts. In addition, Mr. Essley is General Counsel to SGS’ Corporate Social Responsibility Board. In that capacity he has taken a lead in promoting SGS’ efforts to codify comprehensive CSR policies and engage partners in continued CSR efforts.  Prior to joining Sutherland Jay was a commercial trial attorney in New York City and remains a member of the NYS Bar Association and the American Bar Association.

Contact Jay at:

Sutherland Global Services presently maintains relationships with over 150 multinational corporations, healthcare providers, governments and universities around the globe.