|
Quarterly newsletter, Volume 3 - October 2007 Thinkers' Corner
It would seem Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is well on the way to becoming a divisive concept. The issue over which we tend to argue most is where CSR begins and where it ends. The battle among fiercely competing brands to present a ‘fairer’ face to the consumer comes dangerously close to the point of translating responsibilities into irresponsibility. And yet, one cannot help thinking that the business of identifying our ‘responsibilities’ ought to be easier! CSR was first embraced as a concept in the 1970s, since which time its core meaning has remained unchanged: performance based on awareness of our responsibilities towards society, while also respecting the shared values of our employees and all other stakeholders from production through to consumption. In 1988, when we professionals of today were mere fledglings, the US ice cream manufacturer Ben & Jerry’s carried out a survey on the ins and outs of corporate social responsibility for business. As I see it, no company that diverges from the course set back then has the right to talk about the concept of CSR. Looking back at corporate history, we could actually describe this survey as ‘the first-ever social stakeholder report’. Briefly, it took the following form. B&J’s management signed up a consultant by the name of John Tepper Marlin, who was asked to produce a report on how Ben & Jerry’s perceived its social responsibilities towards all of the company’s social stakeholders. Throughout his commission, the consultant was given free rein to talk to anyone, request any data or paperwork and ask any questions. He began with the company staff, interviewing employees on different shifts. From there he moved on to the retail outlets. It was then time to tackle all the links of the supply chain, from dairy producers through to distribution. Not content with this, Marlin also interviewed residents, professional associations and relevant NGOs in the locality of B&J’s production facilities. He even approached investors. At the end of all these interviews, Marlin drew up and signed the “Ben & Jerry’s 1988 Social Responsibility Performance Report”. Ben & Jerry’s has since produced 16 such reports. When you enter the Ben & Jerry’s website today, you have access to a mine of information on CSR issues. There are details of the global warming awareness campaign the company is running, facts on the Sudanese genocide in Khartoum, lists of 50 ways to support world peace and the things you can do as an individual to combat environmental pollution. Why should companies allocate resources to social issues when they also have the option of simply making money and keeping that as their focus? This question constitutes the centrepiece of the CSR debate. Civil society began gathering strength towards the end of the 1980s. Meanwhile, advances in information technology during the 1990s brought a new dimension to the business of accessing information, processing it, and producing fresh information. With the potent combination of these two developments, certain people started having sleepless nights. It became plain that making money was not enough on its own to guarantee survival and that plans for a sustainable future would necessarily have to take social sensitivities and values into account. As a result, organisations such as Greenpeace and the WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) came to symbolise the ‘social risks’ for the corporate world. And the prospect of social risks goaded companies into creating policies that were more ‘responsible’. As the drive towards more responsible action gradually took root, the field of social reporting flourished. At the same time however, some detected a business opportunity. The idea of ‘exploiting’ society’s good intentions in order to increase sales did not seem a bad idea at all. Messages along the lines of “Buy my product, and I will use 10% to build a school!” have raised the spectre of responsibility mutating into irresponsibility. Although not all companies are so forthright in the messages they put forth, they do want to see a clear commercial return on resources allocated towards ‘social responsibility’. Statements of the kind cited above have begun to mushroom in education, tuition, culture, the arts, health, sport – and in every other field with the potential to stimulate society’s good intentions. Take a closer look at the authors of these statements, and you will find unequivocal evidence of serious dirt in the raw material, production and supply processes as well as of bankrupt customer and employee satisfaction practices. When a company presents such an outlandish tableau, how can it possibly have credibility in the area of corporate social responsibility? Another new arrival on the scene has been the ‘wheeler-&-dealer’ agent that conducts CSR audits and awards companies certificates for the privilege. In the belief that certification will allow them to create a difference in their marketing activities, companies now seek ways to ‘buy’ such accreditation. And those that manage to do so then trumpet their virtues in television commercials, blissfully unaware of any future repercussions…. And what should we make of the phenomenon whereby organisations representing civil society hand out awards for corporate-backed social responsibility projects? After all, companies should have a duty to be responsible towards society in the first place. At one time, it wasn’t uncommon to find insurance companies placing full-page newspaper ads in which they bragged about paying clients full compensation for losses caused by fire. Yet aren’t they paid premiums to cover losses in situations of precisely this kind? To my mind, the notion of granting CSR awards closely parallels the attitude of those insurance companies. Companies ought to fulfil their responsibilities towards society in any case. So what are we doing handing out awards? It becomes apparent that we are dealing with an issue absolutely riddled with contradictions. Companies bent on translating their responsibilities into irresponsibility face the kind of reputation damage that is not easily repaired. Shell is possibly the most recent example of what can happen to a corporation when it fails to recognise reputation as its primary source of capital. Sakhalin, one of the sleepy islands en route to the North Pole, is the chosen site of one of Shell’s new pipeline projects. The island and its environs are also the natural habitat of the endangered grey whale. Parallel with its energy project, Shell has so far produced some 29 reports on whale conservation and protection of the endangered species from environmental effects. All the same, the company has consistently failed to satisfy the NGOs concerned, and as a result, the WWF has published an announcement in the influential business newspaper, The Financial Times, publicly condemning Shell’s ‘insensitivity’. Today Shell is perceived in the international public eye as a company that kills off whales, despite having allocated resources to invest in their preservation! You might be tempted to think, “why should I care?” about the 100 remaining grey whales. You might also close your eyes to the horrifying working conditions of child labourers employed in remote corners of Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America to manufacture global brands. And perhaps the melting of the polar ice cap due to the impact of global warming doesn’t concern you in the slightest. But do we really have the luxury of ignoring the radiation waves that struck the shores of the Black Sea after Chernobyl; of passively watching the closure of the Yatağan Thermoelectric Power Plant following a European Court of Human Rights ruling; or of disregarding the horror of a poisonous gas leak in the Yalova area after the Marmara earthquake? Social responsibility is the kind of awareness that a company has to have from day one of its inception: awareness of its employees and surroundings, of society and the world in general, and, by association, of itself. A company reflects its performance only through policies that are entirely ‘sincere’. Practices that lack sincerity and integrity exemplify “the translation of responsibility into irresponsibility”.
Salim Kadıbeşegil
Strategic Communications Consultant, ORSA
|
