One reason why I wanted this forum was to get in contact with other people and get to know their view what CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) means to them.
What does it mean to you?
Thanks.
Fabian
What does CSR mean to you?
Copyright © 2009, 2010. Site created and run by Fabian Pattberg. All rights legal reserved.
The content of SustainabilityForum.com is published under a creative commons license. You are free to republish only headlines and excerpts of our news and blog articles.
This work by http://www.sustainabilityforum.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on the content at www.sustainabilityforum.com.
The content of SustainabilityForum.com is published under a creative commons license. You are free to republish only headlines and excerpts of our news and blog articles.
This work by http://www.sustainabilityforum.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on the content at www.sustainabilityforum.com.
CSR is a ridiculous politically correct concept dreamt up by a PR industry looking for new ways of selling services. If you run a company - the bottom line is what matters. Money talks! OK, give some money to charity if it helps get some publicity, but serious business looks after the real business - not tree hugging.
hmmm... interesting theory if you ignore the fact that contemporary economic are based on social and environmental patterns resolved over time through experience and observation. A shock to any part of the social, economic or environmental status quo influences the entire system.
The connection can be as simple as the fact that unless you live in Australia (where we have plastic money) economics relies primarily on paper, therefore without trees, and thus the environment, your precious economics would not be able to function.
It is the responsibility of every government, through education, incentive, and legislation, to ensure that unsustainable activities are phased out of society as quickly as possible, regardless of political system, party, or precedent.
Very interesting point, DA_. You support corporate philanthropy, but not corporate social responsibility? Please explain.
---
Visit http://www.everyactioncounts.org.uk to make a difference!
CSR is not PR, there is substance behind it. CSR is about decision making managers behaving in a responsible manner in their day to day operations. All companies have an obligation to function within the law, shareholders require the companies to be profitable and expect ethical behaviour; charitable/philanthropic behaviour is desired by some but not essential. Two examples of the ways in which companies conduct themselves and the consequences of their differing ethos can be seen from Wal-Mart and Ikea. No company has it all worked out yet but the profit only maxim tends to lead to a race to the lowest common denominator and only a very small minority of society benefit.
CSR to me means exactly what it says on the tin- a corporation or any other type of organisation acting responsibly (i.e. not just thinking about the bottom line) with regards to the people they employ, those that their operations have an impact on and the environment (both local and global).
Like many other things, it can be and often is, used and abused which is why some people are rightly cynical about it. I have just left the employment of a large UK company who claim to be corporately responsible but I know for a fact that they are not, and there are ulterior motives to the whole thing. Unfortunately I tend to think that for many companies, CSR is more or less a means of generating positive PR and spin where it is not necessarily deserved. Cleary, some companies have a better grasp of this than others and take it more seriously and so I would never generalise and say that CSR is a joke- it just needs to be used properly if it is to be used at all.
I agree with DA_ that CSR is more window dressing and a management fashion then anything else. I think it started out well 10 years ago.
But where is it now I ask all members of this forum.
Do you think CSR is there to stay? I dont!
biker
I think CSR should be seen for what it is, a method by which to instill corporate responsibility as the norm. It should not be seen as something that will last forever, rather that it will influence business to the point where it is no longer required.
It is similar to the writing sheets you are given in pre-school to trace as you learn how to form each letter of the alphabet. Once you know how, you know it for life.
It is the responsibility of every government, through education, incentive, and legislation, to ensure that unsustainable activities are phased out of society as quickly as possible, regardless of political system, party, or precedent.
I'm new to the forum and first want to acknowledge the thoughtful responses to this topic. To me, the thing we should not lose site of is that companies and markets are made up of people. And it’s people who make the decisions to change behavior. Proponents of CSR are asking these people to adopt a new set of behaviors. Therefore we must concern ourselves not only with what makes them WILLING to change (peer pressure, major event, etc), but also what makes them ABLE to change.
I'm in the software industry so this reminds me of an analogy we talk a lot about: Geoffrey Moore's technology adoption model introduced in his book, "Crossing the Chasm". Moore characterizes technology adoption (from iPods to enterprise software) as a big bell curve. Starting from left to right (I'm going to simplify for brevity), the left-most tail of the bell curve represents early adopters. In CSR it's the people in this Forum, the companies issuing annual CSR reports, etc. The big part of the bell curve is divided in half and represents the early and late majorities (again left to right).
However, rather than a continuous curve connecting the early adopters and early majority there's a gap. Moore calls this the chasm. It's the place innovations go that fail to get traction with the early majority. Think in terms of Betamax, the Internet PC, Netscape, etc. These are examples of technologies that drove off the cliff for lack of adoption by the majority market.
In my mind, CSR faces the same challenge. So coming from the perspective of a technology startup type who realizes that I have little control over the market's desire to adopt CSR (no Super Bowl ads for me ;-), I instead focus something I can control: Switching Costs.
Some of the most successful technologies in history weren’t the best technologies. They were merely the most convenient. Microsoft Explorer versus Netscape. Antitrust or not, who could argue with free? Who could argue with the fact that it’s right on the desktop when I fire up my laptop? It was just over at that point.
This begs an important question: Can CSR attach itself to anything else companies already do? Can we make the switching costs from doing X to doing X+CSR near zero? Because, even if the real or perceived benefits of CSR were low, if the switching costs were lower, adoption would skyrocket. It’s simple cost/benefit analysis. And that’s something companies -- and the people in them -- can relate to.
This is where my attention is focused. Anyone else share this perspective?
An extremely interesting range of responses. CSR is undoubtedly a term that can be used for company "spin", but I'd like to think the thought process behind the term - companies understanding that they have a role to play in sustainability issues and should be focused on more than just pure profit - should not be dismissed. Corporations will not go away. Unfortuantely many need to be cajoled into giving something back to the planet, so we must keep pushing, and coming up with business friendly solutions to the problem. If that means getting corporations to do something simply on the back of the corresponding cost benefits, then so be it. If this means selling programs to businesses on the back of them creating greater competitive advantage, then so be it. We'd all love companies to make changes for the pure exhileration of making a positive difference to the planet, but I'm not sure this realistic.
EMISSION STATEMENT
The devil is in the details. Back in the early 1970's, I was a member of a publishing collective. We did both mail order and local delivery to newstands and bookstores.
Over time, the original members were replaced by Lesbians who were offended that we sold Playboy and Penthouse. When they voted to stop distributing these, I left. I knew, but could not get thru to them, that it was the *PROFIT* from those sales that supported our efforts to also publish Greens, Native American, Hispanic, & Black authors, novels, poetry, and magazines.
Six months after I left, they went bankrupt, and an outlet for alternative media was shut down. There are times in business when you havta do things to stay in business that are frankly distasteful.
It mite be more effective to start at the top, and identify just those organizations that are most damaging. For instance, I read that the CEO of Exxon makes 400 million/year. I find this disgusting, and hence never buy gas at Exxon.
For similar reasons, because I know of the unethical and even illegal behavior of Microsoft, I have never had windows on my own desktop. I refuse to encourage the bastards. Not only is supporting Linux the right thing to do, but the new distributions are even easier than windows to install.
At least if you do not run a Gateway computer. They are another outfit with questionable morals and even more questionable hardware.
Thinking about the social and environmental impact is not a choice anymore.
What does it mean to you?
Thanks.
Fabian
CSR to me means a business taking responsibility for the world around them, not just for the money they make. It doesn't have to be just environmental issues (although these are certainly a major part of CSR) but also for the people and the communities they live in.
I think CSR is important and the concept gives the businesses a more "human" approach to existing in the world rather than the cold image they have had in the past.
sorry for my ignorance what is "CSR" short for? I don't want to respond the wrong way if you know what I mean.
Was this site set up by a company? If so I am seriously Paranoid regarding giving info that would allow a company to better hide there improper conduct.
Like Pepsi carbon offset by tree planting for there trucks, while they drain so much of India's water that there is not enough to go around for locals and farmers.
I am attending "thinking out side of the bottle" seminar in my home town mid to late June about the above example. This is about corporate abuse and trying to turn water into a commodity like oil.
We can talk till we are blue in the face, The real impact of change is when we take action based on information we have talked about. So lets do more action to create change. :)
Hello Corey,
CSR means Corporate Social Responsibility.
Corporate social responsibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fabian
"---" Quotes were used from this site from the criticism section
Corporate social responsibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The rule of corporate law that a corporation's directors are prohibited from any activity that would reduce profits "
As long as the above statement is true it is impossible for a business to be truly CSR For the concept of CSR is its going to take money and energies away from making profit to put towards becoming CSR. Although in the long run this is truly where the profit is made. for healthier happier people and environment improves productivity.
A non profit company on the other hand its a perfect fit so long as the leadership is not greedy and cares for environment around them and for who works for them. This is also where the spend money wisely to gain a better balance and harmony for they are more in tune to the environment and people responses to there treatment which has a direct impact on how much business people want to do with that company. It takes only one slip up to destroy CSR too. Example:
"Similarly Shell has a much publicised CSR policy and was a pioneer in triple bottom line reporting, but was involved in 2004 in a scandal over the misreporting of its oil reserves which seriously damaged its reputation and led to charges of hypocrisy."
I never buy "shell" If I know its from them.
Non profit company is not bound by the first rule above this is what makes the Ideal for CSR. So long as the non profit company is not a front for a
For-profit company or a for-profit group company.
I have worked for a non-profit car wash called "Mermaid Car wash" Owned at the time by "Darrell Hewitt" It was a branch of a for profit chain. In his case he ran his car wash as a non profit company which got him in hot water with the chain's leadership. for Darrell put all his profits back into the business in improving the property such as many flowers which were good for insects and had specials such as free car washes on certain days of the year. He also rewarded the crews to a free lunch when we meet certain quotas which in turn inspired us to do better. It wasn't perfect though but it was better than any other car wash in the world which I might add His was the largest indoor car wash in the world when he sold it to a for profit company . There after prices went up they didn't take care of the property as he had (less habitat for insects/ birds) and the business lost almost all of the customers for lack of trust and changing from a CSR into a greed machine. :eek:
We can talk till we are blue in the face, The real impact of change is when we take action based on information we have talked about. So lets do more action to create change. :)
This is an article related to CSR in the real world and how its being abused.
Monbiot.com » Trouble in the Pipeline
as the result of reading such info time and time again I think I will have to refrain from giving anymore suggestions for big business to better hide there misdeeds, which is an understatement, For profit Big Business Will KILL US without MANDATORY REGULATION.
We can talk till we are blue in the face, The real impact of change is when we take action based on information we have talked about. So lets do more action to create change. :)
under the current form of world economy it would be impossible for a company to be responsible for to many other companies are willing to break the rules to get ahead in the profit game and thus would put a responsible company out of business.
We can talk till we are blue in the face, The real impact of change is when we take action based on information we have talked about. So lets do more action to create change. :)
Corporate Social Responsibility......
First it must start within, not too many in the upper echelons, minimal management and advertising. No ridiculous overpayment and benefits to
this sector. Fair and just pay and benefits for the producing employees.
In my experience, the pay of the top brass cuts into the pay of the real producers and the payoff to investors. Over management and over advertising also cut into profits and increase prices unnecessarily. Too many sales personnel and other middlemen also increase prices and cost the people more of their hard earned money. There are many non-productive, useless people doing either minimally necessary or unnecessary functions like in the bogus areas found in the research field. People making an excuse for their existence and parasitic to the corporation and society.
A company should not pollute, and not take resources faster than they are replenished.
Corporate structures should be pleasing to the eyes of those who live nearby.
Corporations should not be political, but should be nationalistic to the country in which they were founded.
In all your decisions and actions, think first of the consequences 7 generations from now. Ute Rule of Life
From my sustainable business blog, hope it helps:
A couple of weeks ago I went along to an event on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Before the presentations started the chap next to me asked what I did. I explained I was an environmental and sustainability consultant and described what I did. His eyes narrowed a bit and he asked me "so why are you here?". I was a little confused by this until he explained that he thought CSR began and ended with donating sums to community groups in the localities around his company's development projects.
This is a perennial problem in the sustainability industry - everybody has a different idea of what each term means, leading to misunderstandings and confusion. So here are a few definitions of CSR.
The UK Government:
is about how business takes account of its economic, social and environmental impacts in the way it operates – maximising the benefits and minimising the downsides.
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development:
"Corporate social responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large."
Wikipedia:
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept that organizations, especially (but not only) corporations, have an obligation to consider the interests of customers, employees, shareholders, communities, and ecological considerations in all aspects of their operations. This obligation is seen to extend beyond their statutory obligation to comply with legislation.
All of these are roughly the same but with differing emphasis on the environmental side of the equation. Some companies and organisations now talk about "Corporate Responsibility" instead, believing that the word "Social" is leading to confusion. But all of them are much wider than the donation-based scope that my new acquaintance had in his mind.
Of course, there is quite a bit of evidence that links good CSR performance to good financial performance, for example this rather heavy academic paper.
Labels: corporate social responsibility, csr
Gareth Kane
Terra Infirma
www.terrainfirma.co.uk
Join me on Twitter, LinkedIn & Facebook
What corporate responsibility means to me is an oxymoron, the very nature of a corporation means that it can only be responsible to its own bottom line and will seek to destroy anything that might compromise its endeavors to maximize it.
I have long thought that the court decision that declared corporations to be legally people unleashed sanctioned entities with psychopathic personalities on the planet who do precisely what you would expect such entities to do, and it surprises me that people believe that such entities can ever be socially responcible.
rcw
Is Sustainability Forum and its CSR branch in any way affiliated with the tobacco industry?
bertzpoet
Hello bertzpoet.
Welcome to the forum.
If that would be the case I would stop running this forum immediately.
The forum is run privately just by myself.
Regards,
Fabian
I have long thought that the court decision that declared corporations to be legally people unleashed sanctioned entities with psychopathic personalities on the planet who do precisely what you would expect such entities to do, and it surprises me that people believe that such entities can ever be socially responcible.
rcw
The Footprint » Book Review: Derrick Jensen’s Endgame
I think you would like and may agree with this books assessment. I have not personally read it. I can't without suffering some serious debilitating panic and anxiety attacks.
Based on the review I agree wholeheartedly with the reviewer regarding the first book in a series.
The point at which the author speaks the obvious that we all can see with our own eyes with a little common sense goes along way on getting the layman to understand the dire nature of our current civilization.:(:mad::eek:
We can talk till we are blue in the face, The real impact of change is when we take action based on information we have talked about. So lets do more action to create change. :)
I dunno how to evaluate how much of CSR is a PR oxymoron, and how much from rational decision making to maximize long term sustainable operation.
As noted, the decisions are made by people, so the degree of mental pathology has the greater impact on the result. Freud noted how the neurotic lives in denial about the risks and downsides of what they are doing, and how much ingenuity they show in explaining to themselves why they think the way they do.
"The Bad News" thread largely arose out of the mass social mental pathology. We see the alarming rates of autism, ADD, ADHD, ICD, PTSD, etc, but we dont see those whose condition is so severe that they come to the attention of case workers. But- we do see the right wing demagogues they elect.
And if corporate social responsibility is an issue, then one response is to organize our own corporations, from the ground up, with the mental flexibility and dispassionate evaluation of the economic risks and opportunities.
We awta quit trying to tell neurotics how to live sustainably; they are not listening. The Superbowl is coming up. What we need to do is put our money and our asses where our mouths are, and organize economic production in a way we've been saying it should be done. Put up, or shut up.
Some well executed replies. I think one of the priorities that needs to be addressed here is the tang of cynicism some of the posts have.
And I think this cynicism is valid. Over the years there has been a decline in the trust we have for those in power - and likewise, those at the head of large corporations/multinationals.
No-one trusted Blair in the end. We could argue that he was head of a multinational in many ways. Businesses may really have a green heart, yet we suspect an underhand reason for their CSR. Is it, as others have suggested, merely a PR stunt, or do they really mean it?
The public are more media-savvy than at any other time. We EXPECT lies. We look for lies.
I think the only way to remove MY mistrust is to shift the angle as to how we approach this. I firmly believe in the customer wielding the most power. Businesses change if WE change.
In other words, if the public as a whole can demand CSR, it becomes a redundant argument as to whether the company is playing at being green or really IS green.
Let US make the decision. If the companies don't follow, then they'll go under.
I appreciate the naivety of the argument - but I maintain that by turning it on its head, hope is far stronger.
Let US make the decision. If the companies don't follow, then they'll go under.
I appreciate the naivety of the argument - but I maintain that by turning it on its head, hope is far stronger.
This would be true if the companies are not diversified.
Many of the biggest Companies are so diversified that it is impossible to avoid them and not buy there products. thus the "freegan" philosophy comes to mind. "It has become a broken system thus it is time to remove ourselves from that broken system and build a new one from scratch."
This is no easy task for it requires a complete overhaul of your life style. Not to mention it can get a bit lonely for others who are not willing to change tend to avoid you since we become a reminder or there conscience thus they start to feel guilty thus they avoid you.
We can talk till we are blue in the face, The real impact of change is when we take action based on information we have talked about. So lets do more action to create change. :)
I know that corporations do contain people of goodwill whom are genuine about csr, the inherent nature of corporations and corporate culture that arises from it however is such that a corporation cannot ever by socially responsible.
Corporate interests wage a continuous concerted battle against regulation, claiming free markets and Adam Smiths "invisible hand" will fix everything.
In reality however corporations are risk averse to an extreme degree and do everything possible to stifle competition whilst giving the illusion that they promote it, proclaiming "win win scenarios" in every case.
In truth however we know that if the set of entities that are played for is finite then all games are minimax and corporations make sure the rules are set so as to maximize their share at the expense of everyone else, if they are not they simply will not play the game.
We hear politicians constantly railing against the evils of big government, and yet are strangely reticent about speaking of big corporations in the same terms. These believers in democracy try to convince us that a large corporation that is answerable only to its own bottom line is preferable to a government institution that is answerable to the people via the parliament, I for one don't believe it.
In the end it seems to me the only thing that can be done is to invoke the Leviathan principle, we need an entity big and powerful enough to really regulate corporations rather than the cosmetic lap dog corporate regulators we have now.
Looking at the state owned corporate entities of China and Russia I see the only hope that csr can be any more than just a pr exercise.
To me it is no wonder that western corporate interests and their political lackeys maintain a constant barrage of disapproving rhetoric against them,( whilst at the same time doing business with them), all the while shouting free enterprise and democracy, could it be that they have seen their Nemesis? time will tell, and we are rapidly running out of it.
rcw
Many valid viewpoints have been expressed about what CSR means. While social and environmental responsibility are desirable characteristics of businesses, the only way to successfully implement these initiatives is to ensure that they are economically beneficial to the company as well. Unless the CSR initiatives can be demonstrated to contribute to the company's bottom line, and deliver long-term sustainable value, they will not be effective.
Fortunately, companies and their shareholders are realizing that there are a huge range of benefits to implementing a corporate sustainability strategy that reduces environmental impacts, enhances social and community wellbeing while improving profitability and competitive advantage. There are right and wrong ways to go about it--- as demonstrated by the many comments posted here. The business case for implementing sustainability strategies, tailored to the context of each organization must be one of the first steps. It's about capitalizing on opportunities and proactively anticipating and managing risks. The top five reasons/drivers to do it, as I see it are:
1. Retaining Top Talent and Increasing Employee Satisfaction
2. Better Management of Business Risks
3. Product/Service Differentiation
4. Reducing Operating and Manufacturing Costs
5. Enhancing Image, Reputation and Brand Recognition
You can read a brief summary of each of these drivers at Five Benefits of a Corporate Sustainability Strategy
Jabeen Quadir
Sustainability Edge Solutions
http://sustainabilityedge.com
Solarphille, sorry for my out of date reply to your post, but I have only just joined this CoP. The points raised are great points, but I think CSR as a strategy can and should be be done using the available strategic tools (PEST, SWOT Activity planning etc) while at the same time constantly revising the organisation's mission - PURPOSE (the why do we exist question) STRATEGY (the how do we compete question) VALUES (What do we hold in high esteem as a company) BEHAVIOUR (how our purpose, values and strategy replicates into actions). Once organisations begin to look a CSR from this prospective it would not longer be a zero sum game, whereby its the corporation on one side and the society on the other. But a mutual relationship where everyone wins, based on mutual understanding of what is acceptable giving the business function and resources base, as well as how will its involvement in CSR to enhance its competitive adge or build upon its core competence.
I should be forgiven for being a strong supporter of Michael Porter, but have a look at his article from the Harvard Business review Dec 2006 - "Strategy and Society - the link between competitive advantages and CSR"
Lloydon
i have presention the corporate social responsibility i want more information about how i shall present it and i looking for more articles on this topic/
if any body now plz help me
Noolareman,
CSR is a huge topic what in CSR are you presenting? Who are your audience? What's the aim of the presentation? Are you looking to evaluate, or just informing the audience? Such and other parameters should be made clear so we can begin to give some form of guidence towards your presentation. Nevertheless, a good place to start regardlesss of audience or level pitching is to place your argument within a contemporary context, which would involve some historical dimension and show how it evoluted to today's reasoning. Again why CSR emerge can be traced back to the growth of the corporation Berle and Means (1938), the explosive size of corporation Crane and Matten (2005), increase laws, eg the pollution and smoke laws(Manchester), the big stink (London) etc. Environmental concerns are also important. The growth of information technology the Internet and www. (1990's). Greater transworld travels increased awareness, and the list can go on and on. But to make your presentation exciting it needs to be relevant to your audience. Hope this helps!
Lloydon
thanks dear for replaying
i want to inform the audiance in the presention
and as you said is huge topic and i was wondering which area to talk about which can be adaptable to prblems at these day
Noolareman
You are very lucky! I sat for the last hour and put together a short presentation for your audience. If you require the academic reference please feel free to drop me a line at bn08leeds.ac.uk or bryanalleyne@hotmail.com
I am sorry that the format is in adobe, but that's the only known format which is supported on the forum. Hope this help..
Oh 1 more think, I am sorry that a few of the examples are very UK specify, I was not to sure which part of the world you are in, nevertheless, if you have any confusion i am sure I can find the time and explain a few.
Take care Lloydon
:feedback::discussion: