An interesting piece in The Guardian yesterday on the latest re CSR.
I have already forecast (see Dec 07 blog) that by the end of the year CSR will only still appear in an academic sense (in terms of learning) as the economic environment turns.
To echo my forecast, I even see 'sustainability' potentially being replaced by the term resilience (as in organisation resilience). However, CSR won't be dead as such as I suspect that the 'S' will be finally dropped into corporate responsibility (CR).
For CR, also read ethics or ethical management will strongly re-appear (which is all it ever was really).
There are a number of examples that have already hit the news. And there will be more......
The problem was that CSR was that it is too broad a concept which has multiple perspectives, some of which are conflicting with increasing complexity, and that original objectives were to some degree hijacked (i.e. PR from both sides of the fence). CSR has a different focus for each organisation.
However, dropping CSR doesn't mean a free-for-all, 'let's collectively forget management responsibilities'. Yesterday's blog was a reminder of that.
I had made the point previously that, from a human capital management perspective, human capital was itself becoming a secondary focus (where's the ethics in that?).
I still maintain that human capital management is a mandatory corporate agenda item, as opposed to a 'nice to have'. I also warned that HR functions should perhaps steer clear of aligning themselves too much under the CSR banner as it would only deflect from their core purpose.
My concern of the whole CSR thing was that it was becoming an industry in itself (probably still is at the moment) - an end rather than a means to an end. It also seemed to create lots of 'parasitic' enterprises which in themselves create nothing of any value (i.e. they are a CR transaction cost).
Let's not forget, CR has been around for several hundred years. There are organisations that get it right and there are those who don't and there are many who are in between that spectrum.
But reading through quite a few case studies on the subject, one is left with a distinctive chill regarding ceratin 'terrorist' tactics which are/were being applied to various successful organisations (i.e. those with money) on issues which are/were far from simple and yet garnered the 'limelight.
We have seen a recent example on M&S. This may be seen as legitimate and even 'innovative'. Others see it as desperate opportunism. But this type of stuff really ends up with organisations gradually withdrawing, i.e. making no policy statements on CR/ethics/CSR/sustainability for fear of this type of activity. Ultimately little is gained with the 'us' and 'them' approach in this space.
When it comes to CR, we have to harness our passion and use it intelligently. Good responsible management comes from within an organisation which rewards the 'right' results through the 'right' behaviours. It is not just about compliance.
But we shouldn't underestimate the complex, dilemma-type challenges organisations face everyday.
And right now - for a number of organisations, survival is becoming a more prominent directive. Good CR of course will inevitably be of value but I would expect that internal resource may well be more focused on the resilient aspects of customer and staff retention, productivity, profit and cashflow.
Without these, the various current CSR projects in progress cannot be sustained, no matter how much the clamour from the various NGOs and CSR-compliance enterprises there (still) are out there...........
