Corporate social responsibility is dead. Now it’s all about ‘good business’

I’m suspicious of attention bating headlines pronouncing (blah) is dead. Inevitably, such articles go on to simply rename the corpse with a phrase which basically means the same thing, like this one does. Using Pepsi in the US, as an example of the new-named social way, shows how nothing has changed…I mean, if Pepsi were truly concerned about the social impact of their products, they could perhaps start with what they actually put in them, rather than paying out social indulgences to the clean sectors. The most important thing a company can do – economically, socially, environmentally – is to create quality products, for fair prices, that do no harm in any phase of its production, use or disposal.

Same shit, different name.

Can something be dead if it was never truly alive?

So let me get this straight Nic …

“Corporate social responsibility is dead” and yet you urge Australian businesses to do more of, and get better at, exactly the things which CSR activity covers.

I’m going to write a comment piece on Mumbrella called “Comment pieces are passe” and I’ll eagerly anticipate the lively discussion to my obselete posting.

Hmmm. Not wishing to self-publicise on this forum (me? nah, never) but I’d urge browsers interested in CSR to have a more balanced reading of the topic here:

http://www.slideshare.net/Adam.....g-apr-2010

I always thought of CSR as something of a long term commitment and involvement by a company, and CRM as a short term policy ‘jump on the bandwagon’ of the ‘issue of the month’ sort of thing but I ain’t no expert.

I agree that it’s largely not done (well) here in Oz. Lots of ’cause washing’, lip service and grandstanding (Woolies) and not much actual genuine hand on heart stuff. I mean there’s people who still think offsetting is the best way to approach the environmental issue!

I also agree that when it is done well, it is the way of the future.

This is just nonsense. As Don Rocin said, I am very suspicious of headlines that declare something dead. CSR is not dead. What you have described is companies paying close attention to their CSR and taking that into account when making business decisions. So it is not dead; it is moving into the boardroom.

In much the same way that marketing decisions are now made higher up in the organisation (sometimes) and affect business decisions.

This article is almost an advertorial.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback. It’s always interesting to have the bad along with the good! In response to a few of the comments…

Don:
There’s no doubt that I chose an attention bating headline (guilty as charged!), but I don’t agree that ‘good business’ (or ‘sustainability’) means the same thing as ‘CSR’. CSR (at least in its traditional form) operates as an adjunct to a company’s core business. ‘Good business’, in my opinion, is about authentic integration. Both refer to doing good but the difference is in how that good is done. I agree that the Pepsi Refresh Project doesn’t go far enough but I think it’s a step in the right direction. PepsiCo is apparently trying to improve the nutrition of their food products, however, their flagship brand is still essentially sugary water. I think this will increasingly become a problem for them as they continue to play in the social change space.

Adam:
As I said above, I’m encouraging Australian company’s to have more of a focus on doing good, but the key lies in how that good is done. Some traditional forms of CSR are quite impressive but much of it is tokenistic and almost all of it operates as an adjunct to core business. I’m suggesting that doing good should be properly integrated within the way companies operate and I believe a change in terminology will help make that happen – hence my suggestion of the term ‘good business’. I’ve read your article, which I think is very good. In fact, I’d suggest that we are both saying a very similar thing. You are essentially discussing an enlightened form of CSR. My suggestion is that enlightened CSR has little similarity with traditional CSR and thus should be renamed. We both talk about the need for authenticity, both of us cite Nike as example of a leading company in the area, and both of us talk of the need for integration – your article speaks of Westpac as a great example of a company that is taking an “organisation-wide approach to CSR”. I’d be keen to hear your feedback and whether I’ve understood where you’re coming from.

CPR for CSR anyone?

Nic – Great post.

Sad to see the pessimists of the world grabbing hold of one-liners in an attempt to bring down a solid principle.

Evidence is emerging that many CSR initiatives launched by big business which involve one day ‘donated time’ by their workers are actually causing more harm than good; forcing NGOs to create work for them to do rather than having an on-going committment to a single cause. So this shift, where companies are starting to recognise the changing demands of society and what they want from their products, and bringing that in line with their profit motive, is definitely for the better.

I tend to agree with Don. I also find it curious that you right an article under this heading yet then provide one example of the changes you have based this article on. You also touched on companies are “now choosing to declare not only their financial results but also their impact on the community and the environment”. Many Australian corporates have been providing exceptionally detailed CSR reports on their websites for years, eg. NAB.
Personally I would be happy for big corporations to have good corporate governance rather than them attempting to appear to be do-gooders.

Good to have the topic discussed candidly Nic,

I’d suggest CSR is simply evolving rather than pushing up daisies.

Business is always looking to do things smarter and better and that applies to CSR (by any name) equally.

An interesting trend being noticed by demographers is that consumers want their brands to stick to their core business and look after their own operating environment as it makes good business sense.

Do I want Nike to save the rainforests? No? should Nestle do more in this area? Hell yes.

As you say, the triple bottom line is an easy recipe for success: look after your people and the environment in which you operate and you will profit.

CH – why do “good corporate governance” and being “do-gooders” have to be mutually exclusive?
Surely accurate / comprehensive disclosure doesn’t prohibit them (nor necessarily allow for) effective CSR/ CRM policies.

@Nic

There may well be some parallels in what we’re both saying, but your headline should’ve been “CSR is important” which hardly sounds as controversial 🙂

If you’re struggling with a definition of CSR then I’d suggest you visit the Australian Centre for CSR, based here in Melbourne:

http://www.accsr.com.au/

@Adam

Which is exactly why I chose a more controversial headline!

Thanks for the link to ACCSR – I’m aware of their work. I think that most of the world is struggling with a definition for CSR (or whatever we term it), particularly as it continues to change/evolve.

I have my own definition, being that CSR/good business is (or should be) about the way that companies do business and the social, environmental and commercial impact that they have. I’m well aware that this is broader than most other definitions, but I’m OK with that 🙂

IMHO: shrinking ‘corporate social responsibility’ or any other term like it to an acronym is the first step to ensuring it’s death as a real force within business. It removes the emotional attachment experienced and leaves it wide open to being viewed as rationally and coldly as EBIT or CAPEX or any other balance sheet or P&L item.

I work in the SME market where there are numerous businesses ‘doing good’ profitably in many fields – I make it my business to seek them out and work with them.

Yeah, it’s a 100% dorky piece, hiding under a LOOK-AT-ME headline
(classic advertising over-promise, under-delivery)

With ACOSS (if you don’t know who/what/where/why that is, just go away),
I organised Australia’s first corporate seminars on CSR, in Syd, Melb & Adelaide, back in gee must’ve been the 70’s, tho could’be been the 80’s. Whatever!
CSR has established itself as a key concept that frames corporations with the broader notion of a social good, and it’s an idea central to all economic activity in the post-GFC world. A notion stemming from “nobless oblige”, if you like.

Of course, some corporations do more that pay token heed to the notion, but without a sense of involvement with, responsibility to and even dependence on something called (l;et’s say) society, we’ll all be rooned.

CSR gone? Fuck, I hope not!

I’m not sure if it’s important what it’s called or how it’s defined, but I can say from the perspective of a small non-profit organization that effective partnerships with business are critical for the future of both.
It can range from headline grabbing stuff that suits both parties, to quiet behind the scenes [we’re buying new notebooks, can we add one for you to the shopping list?] support, from activities that involve consumers, to a friendly ‘let’s have coffee’ and some invaluable personal time.
It’s not one size fits all.
Many very effective non-profits are small and have never been heard of because they quietly go about their charitable cause.
Perhaps if business looks upon us as potential business partners [except our ‘profit’ goes into a community good and not to shareholders and staff] it would begin to change the equation.
And non-profits must learn to stop rattling the tin cup and look for ways they can help business partners solve problems.
It’s hard, but we’re trying.
David Ricquish
Radio Heritage Foundation http://www.radioheritage.net
Home of ‘Long Lost Australian Radio Stars’ and still looking for business partners who see value in Australia’s broadcasting heritage!

Great stuff. Sincerely.

I think CSR really doesn’t go to the value-core of the business practicing it – hence the skepticism is high on what’s really driving them to do good. Even though the majority of these companies are doing positive things, the perception of authenticity just isn’t there.

In my opinion it really needs a value shift from the core and maybe not all companies can do that – i.e. some products just can’t be sustainable.

There is a choice for these companies though – first understand how the product/s are solving peoples’ problems or meeting their needs. The next step is the entrepreneurial part – finding the alternative product to do the same thing in the most sustainable way possible – its a challenge!

Perhaps overall, what’s really required are creative business models that don’t follow the path of their dying monument counterparts.

It is without doubt time to move beyond CSR. Businesses have struggled for years for sound metrics to calculate ROI. To date, none have done so convincingly. The result has typically been ad hoc attempts that aim at improving brand perception (often not done well). This does not however mean that corporations are not looking for ways to work around these teething problems.

Companies, such as IBM, have recognized that metrics are available as soon as CSR initiatives are linked to strategic objectives. They also avoid problems associated with corporate volunteering by engaging NGOs with proven volunteer sending experience. The result has been a hugely successful program, demonstrated by at least three evaluations, including one by the Harvard Business School.

More and more businesses are now looking to NGOs to assist them develop and implement progressive programs that will benefit the business, its employees, and communities in need of assistance. With measurable outcomes, and well documented benefits, it is no wonder more organizations are getting on board. And in doing so, moving beyond the old CSR paradigm to something far superior.

I encourage all to find out more at http://www.abv.org.au/