There are multiple definitions of Social Capital, among others by Bordieu (1986), Burt (1992) and Putnam (1995). However, a number of these perspectives are difficult to either be understood or operationalized by industry. Their conceptualization of Social Capital is not aligned with the way many firms, especially technical ones understand the resources they have. For example, Bordieu’s focus is on the accrued value obtained via relationships and have received more interest from scholars. Upon presentation to industry audiences however, the speaker found a lot of resistance especially when the measures are difficult to map to their framework. 

It was Putnam who observed Social Capital is not a unidimensional concept, and Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1997, 1998) who integrated these different facets. They do so by focusing on the network of relationships and trust among people who live and work together, a critical asset for industries. It’s the glue that holds organizations together, fostering collaboration, innovation, and efficiency. In the workplace, social capital leads to more effective team synergy, as employees who feel connected are more likely to be engaged and productive. Companies can leverage social capital by encouraging networking, mentoring, and team-building activities that strengthen interpersonal connections. This investment in social relationships can result in a more cohesive, resilient, and agile organization, capable of navigating challenges and capitalizing on opportunities including innovation. It is this perspective that many industries found much more aligned with their social understanding of their organizations, especially when mapped to outputs of ESG. Rahmat will present these observations via three client case studies.