CSR – The Whole Truth?

CSR – ‘Borne from the belief that trade brings obligations, CSR makes companies responsible for their use of resources, both environmentally and socially. The role of public relations in CSR strategies is to communicate effectively to build corporate accountability and transparency.’

– CIPR definition

Leading on from the comments on my last post it seems that the jury is still out on the topic of CSR; is it ‘a way for companies to give back’ or is there a more sinister undertone to their good deeds? When are ethics about the right thing to do and when is it about making an organisation look good? (Parsons, 2008)

In its heyday companies with philanthropic intentions, were seen to generate more economic added value. Before long every large organisation had a CSR plan taking business into the heart of society, Surma (2005) referred to this as corporations assuming the role of ‘collective moral actors’ (Moloney, K. 2006). But from researching around the topic it appears that not all companies are taking the moral high ground.

PR guru Trevor Morris summarised this notion as ‘Business need to be seen as doing good, not just good business’ (Morris, T and Goldsworthy, S. 2008). The problem seems to stem from the shift between CSR to improve investor relations and CSR for the common good. After all at the end of the day there are more to stakeholder relations than your investors. I believe it’s this dissonance that has created the negative connotations that some of my readers picked up on in my last post. But if I were to put on my business hat I can understand that it’s unreasonable to scorn those companies who maybe are participating in CSR for regulatory reasons as no one wants to be that company who doesn’t give anything back.

Is there such a thing as ‘pure CSR’, where the intentions are solely good?

In a word, no. At the end of the day it’s profoundly hard to believe that any company would undergo activity without expecting some kind of ROI (return on investment), whether that be physical (sales) or metaphorical (reputation). That isn’t necessarily a bad thing as if a company is participating in good stakeholder relations they need to please those at the top as well as at the bottom, and nothing pleases a CEO quite like a shiny community driven project that increases the numericial sentiment of his/her brand!

The PRCA is convinced that these days CSR can fall into one of two categories; ‘the first is ‘Conviction CSR’: I can’t prove it but I feel it’s the right thing to do. The second is ‘Compliance CSR’: what’s the least we need to do to get a tick in the CSR box.’ (Wheeler, A. 2010)

Does it matter which you fall into?  I don’t believe it does matter, as even if the pure intention isn’t there and it is more of a self-interested box ticking activity, so what? Some quick fire CSR campaigns have really made a difference to certain stakeholder groups. On the flip side some of the larger some conviction campaigns have made very little difference apart from making the CEO feel warm and fuzzy inside. Take BP for example, they have had their fair share of bad PR over the last few years which has led to their main CSR focus being firmly set on environmental issues. Many of these projects never see the light of day and are instead hidden on their corporate website. Is it their fear of public ridicule? I’ll let you be the judge of that one.

BP keep some of their CSR activities close to their chest

What does the future hold for CSR?

An IBM study conducted in 2008 found that there has been a profound shift in the attitudes of businesses with regard to CSR strategy. They concluded that many businesses are now not seeing CSR as a regulatory practice and are instead utilising new vessels of communication. Social media has meant that transparency of business activity has never been higher; a company’s activities are at a consumer’s fingertips meaning strategies can be undertaken at a relatively low-cost and with maximum exposure.

See the full video here:

In essence we have entered a new realm of CSR management with less emphasis on the misdemeanors of past years like green washing and more focus on the transition to a digital world where consumer engagement in a campaign is paramount.

Is the wool really being pulled over our eyes?

Initially I would have thought that CSR is an acceptable form of Propaganda or Persuasion. However now I’m not so sure, I don’t believe the practice can be pigeonholed as either. It is obviously that as a society we are shifting from a stakeholder to a more CSR model, but as the end consumer we are only ever going to hear one side of the story. Instead, the propagandist activity actually lies with the PR professional or ‘hemispheric communicator’ whose job it is to window dress a strategy so only the positives are focused on. If this is fulfilled they’ve done a good job right? I guess that depends on your ability to be OK with the moral imbalance of representing THE cause not YOUR cause.

What are your thoughts on maintaining the balance between your own morals and those of your client?

Do you think the increased use of digital media will continue to change the sentiment of CSR?

Sources

Farsoun, A. (2010). CSR – Thank goodness for the Credit Crunch.Available: http://www.prca.org.uk/CSR-thankgoodness-credit-crunch-AbyFarsoun-Grayling. Last accessed 30/10/2012.

Moloney, K (2006). Rethinking Public Relations. 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge. p.101-113.

Morris, T and Goldsworthy, S (2008). PR a Persuasive Industry?. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. p.97-110.

Parsons, P (2008). Ethics in Public Relations. 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page. p.149-153

Wheeler, A. (2010). CSR – Conviction or Compliance?. Available: http://www.prca.org.uk/CSR_Conviction_or_Compliance. Last accessed 30/10/2012.