the value of CSR?!

[DA_]

Can anyone point to one bit of value that's come out of 'good csr' other than "it's helped our brand" , "it helps us recruit the best people" etc etc.

show me the money in csr, and I might subscribe to it

[matthewtrigg]

Before I do that can you please provide us with a few examples of organisations that have defied CSR and still remain successful in the long term?

[Chris Mason]

Interface, a global carpet company are leading the charge to sustainability. They reckon they've saved around $200 million in the past five years by waste reduction and effeciency measures, also generating around $200 million of new business.

Marks&Sparks must also think there's profit to be had in leading the field in terms of CSR.

Check out Bob Doppelts book - 'Leading change for sustainability (2003: Greenleaf). He mentions a study of around 160 organisations and notes considerable economic advantages including-

SCA AB paper company saving around $7 million
DuPont saving $400 million
Xerox - several billion dollars!!

This is not to mention the new business opportunities made possible by sustainability and improved performance from a more motivated and engaged workforce.

[90% by 2030]

Chris,

I agree all that you say, and it makes sense from a business perepective - but doesn't that mean that there is no such thing as "CSR", because the reason the business is making these decisions is because they are value-add to the business - its got nothing to do with the businesses chosing to be responsible.

If by some quirk of economics, reducing waste actually cost more, what would Interface have chosen to do?

[jimbhapy]

Beware confusing CSR with philanthropy.

Surely what we are trying to demonstrate, and live out, is the principle that true, integrated, well-thought-out CSR or Sustainability is integral to business success, in the long term. Asking whether Interface would have reduced waste if it had cost more is like asking whether Tesco will reduce prices if it will lead to lower sales. So it is no surprise that reducing waste is both economically sensible and "good CSR"; or that "good CSR" leads to higher employee morale, higher retention rates, higher quality of recruits, and therefore better productivity; or that M&S is betting that "good CSR" will lead to enough of an increase in profits to pay for their £200m investment announced last week; or that in Africa "good CSR" includes extensive HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment policies to protect the workforce, labour pool, and market - and so enable businesses to continue.

[wongoz]

I find it very interesting that we're talking about 'good CSR'... I assume then that 'bad CSR' would be that which leads to business losses? In which case, why wouldn't you subscribe to 'good CSR'?

Aside from the debate about whether businesses have any moral responsibilities, if 'good CSR' leads to positive results, whether directly financial or indirectly through positive media coverage - why wouldn't that be beneficial enough to consider using?