Innovation + Responsibility

This week's issue of The Economist has a special 14-page section dedicated to Corporate Social Responsibility.  You might think it unusual for this particular magazine to focus so intently on CSR when you consider the article from January 2005 decrying CSR as a waste of shareholders' money.  But apparently The Economist recognizes the business opportunity CSR can bring (in this case, selling more magazines), and decided to dive into the subject and make some conclusions. I suppose you can read it if you are so inclined - I just spent a solid hour and a half reading the 14-page  "special report" - but in the interest of saving people the time (and money if you are not a subscriber), I will summarize it here for you. (And by the way, let me just say that I really do like The Economist as a news source. I've been subscribing since business school - my European boyfriend at the time introduced me to it  - and have found its political and business perspectives refreshing at times.)

• A lot of companies are bought into the idea of CSR
• Not many companies are doing it well
• Many companies use CSR as a PR tool and nothing more
• If CSR is to be more than PR, it will be long, hard work
• The best kind of CSR is that which is good for business and good for society
• Much of CSR is good risk management
• Companies that pursue CSR strategies are likely to have an advantage in the competition for talent
• CSR means different things in different countries
• Emerging markets, like China and India, are likely to shake up the conventional CSR wisdom
• Many - if not most - companies are guilty of some degree of greenwashing

In other words, The Economist really did not offer anything new on the subject. 

I'll readily admit that even though it's not new for me (or anyone else in my kind of role at another company), perhaps much of it is going to be new for folks who aren't knee-deep in CSR every day.  That makes The Economist's focus on CSR particularly important. Because even though some of what I have outlined above seems like CSR-101 today, I am pretty sure this kind of thinking did not exist ten or 15 years ago at companies like Wal Mart or GE - two companies that have decided to bet their brands on this as a way of doing business (though I take issue with much of how Wal Mart runs its business, sustainability initiatives notwithstanding).

I did find some choice nuggets in the Economist piece that I want to take this opportunity to highlight.  It is not that these bits of wisdom highlight anything groundbreaking, but somethings are worth saying more than once.

"If efforts to do good become a distraction from the core business they may actually be downright irresponsible. After all, a socially conscious but bankrupt business is no good to anyone." 

"For global companies...a one-size-fits-all approach to corporate responsibiltiy may not work. What is right for Europe may not be appropriate for India..."

"The followers in the CSR industry are many...their real motive is public relations and the telltale sign is that the person responsible for CSR sits in the corporate communications department." 

"It is the interaction between a company's principles and its commercial competence that shapes the kind of business it will be." 

"In time it will simply be the way business is done in the 21st century." 

Innovative Responsibility
When I first started this blog, I wanted to focus on innovation in the area of CSR. It hasn't quite worked out that way and instead I have mostly focused on trends in CSR, Sun's efforts to embed CSR into our business and other topics that catch my fancy.   I think this is mostly because there just is not a lot of innovation happening in this space.  As is evident from this Economist piece, CSR  advocates are still trying to justify its existence as a legitimate part of business strategy, even as it becomes more widely accepted in the boardroom. Therefore, simply having a CSR function can make management feel they are going out on a limb. As a CSR person within a company, if you are spending much of your time trying to convince people of the value of your role, you are probably not rocking the boat much, which means you aren't getting a lot of opportunities to be innovative. Mostly you are probably just trying to keep pace with what other companies are doing so you don't fall behind.

The only cases in which I see companies actually innovating in how they approach their overall corporate responsibility program - not innovative products here and there, not a cool looking report, but how they function as a business - are those companies where the CEO is directly engaged and involved. Where senior management understands the value of CSR as a core business strategy. Where the person who oversees CSR is as senior as the person who oversees marketing or finance and is taken as seriously. Or maybe there isn't one person who oversees it because it is truly embedded into everyone's job responsibilities.

The Economist article mentions one of these companies - Marks & Spencer (a leading British retailer)- briefly in its report. It talks about the M&S CSR program, called Plan A (because there is no Plan B) and the executive committee responsible for the strategy and implementation of Plan A, called the "How We Do Business Committee." Simple, yes. But innovation often is just that.

There aren't many companies like this - at least not in the United States. But these kinds of companies are on the rise - perhaps because  like Lee Scott at Wal Mart, the CEO had a revelation, or because like Jeffrey Hollander at Seventh Generation, that's  how the business was set up in the first place. And the more I see it happening, the more I think that my career goals - seemingly opposed but actually quite connected - may actually come true. That I will sit at the table as a member of senior management, a full participant in setting long-term business strategy, and that the company I work for won't have a CSR or citizenship department because it will be implied in every department.

A girl can dream.