Cleaning Up After the Elephant

While some organizations are embracing new and exciting ways of engaging in CSR, others are still are using it as an “after the fact” intervention. A conversation with an oil exec from Calgary illustrates this. While interested in the potential for good that CSR can create, he reported that for his company the CSR department was only used after the elephant had left the room…and the room now needed cleaning.

First of all, to be clear, this is not social responsibility. This is reputation management and misses the mark of the basic assumptions of doing the right thing. I would be surprised if this approach can be sustained for much longer. Consumer interest demands greater transparency, news stories of CSR are on the increase and ultimately these collective activities will start to impact shareholder opinion and investment.

CSR is about looking into the business environment now and the future…and understanding how to create leverage by engaging with public interests and contributing to solutions in advance of problems. For larger organizations this is no easy task as they look up down the value chain and understand that they are susceptible throughout and therefore must be vigilant and deliberate in their intentions. This task is made easier by the embedding of CSR into the strategy to go forward, it is not a communications device, and it is more than a extension of the HR portfolio.

The challenge is to effectively weave the CSR strategy into the corporate DNA and to intertwine the performance and metrics of this practice with the larger or broader goals of the organization. This kind of approach supports the embedding of CSR into the longer term strategic plan of the organization and then reporting out on progress and adjusting accordingly.

Are companies getting this? Are there companies in the energy sector that are showing new and novel ways to engage and add value to the communities in which they do business? Finally, and this may be a discussion for another day, even if the energy sector (fossil fuel based) is trying to clean up its act….and does some good, can it ever stop itself from being an elephant?

The Convenience of CSR

A good friend of mine once said about being an employer…” We don’t support people only when it is convenient for us to do so”.  I have used this statement repeatedly in numerous contexts since it was introduced to me many years ago. And, I hope I have practiced it.

Responsibility and Relationship

In my mind it goes to the center of the connection between the concepts of relationship and responsibility. Let’s separate these two for a moment. Within the context of corporate social responsibility I have heard responsibility described as the moral commitment to do what is expected.  This is fine starting place and many companies would do well just to meet this standard. My concern is that this kind of standard is less a ceiling for high achievement but rather a floor of minimal expectations – essentially compliance to societal norms or industrial regulations.  If however, we add the concept of relationship, that is, something that matters, does this start to elevate the behavior associated with responsibility to something that is of a higher measure?

A blog by Aman Singh questions the role of CSR officers within large corporations.  She argues that while the role is still being established the immaturity of it means that officers from elsewhere within the organization are being shoehorned into the positions because of their talent shown elsewhere, not because of some understanding  or even passion for CSR objectives and outcomes.  This approach is in danger of supporting an activity because “it is convenient to do so”.

Aman goes on to state “In a knee jerk reaction, we are instituting them (the uninformed CSR officer) as our green spokespersons but not demanding that they embed sustainability in the company’s long term strategy and all operations. Until regulation and stakeholders support us, achieving corporate social responsibility remains an elusive goal, titles notwithstanding.”

So…what if we found a way to bring in the second element in the connection?...the relationship? What if we found a way to not only discover the long term strategic touchpoints between traditional corporate strategy and long term CSR, but we did so by actually embedding the emerging leaders within CSR programs and services(relationships that matter) and then used those actual activities as levers for understanding themselves, their roles and responsibilities within their company, the communities in which they do business and ultimately leadership itself.

From a corporate perspective would this be inconvenient?  Probably, yet it would demonstrate a  pivotal shift from CSR as an adjunctive program to one of true strategic differentiation and long term commitment

CSR or Corporate Sustainability

An interesting article appeared on the Wall Street Journal community discussion area a few days ago, it’s worth checking out – the title “Good Intentions – Corporations Reconsider CSR” was the latest in a shift away from the terminology of CSR to Corporate Sustainability or CS.
It is interesting to see the face of CSR change from a predominantly externally focused perspective (society) to an internal one (corporate sustainability). The systemic focus of CSR or CS obviously shows a dependency whereby the health of one entity is largely if not entirely dependent upon the health of the other. The shift however is pivotal in that the increased focus on a CS perspective compels the organization to examine their approach to society, the environment and the bottom line from a truly strategic perspective rather than an add on that is secondary to day to day operations.
Progressive organizations woke up a long time ago to the fact that the HR department and its various subsets of talent management, succession management, retention and recruitment should not be the poor cousins at the executive table but are key contributors to the success of both short and long term strategy. Will we start to see the Chief Responsibility/Sustainability Officer join the exec table as valued member contributing to strategy?
So, Coke has listed CSR as the second most powerful driver of employee engagement after leadership. What would happen if hands on exposure to CSR initiatives were a pre-requisite for promotions within the leadership ranks? Perhaps then CSR would truly influence the internal machinery of the executive suite.
If someone is looking for such a beast, I happen to know of an innovative new company……
Submitted by Dave Harrhy

Can Disaster Relief Contribute to a Longer Term CSR Focus

As the relief efforts continue to build for the disaster in Haiti, we can be impressed by the response of corporations as they respond with contributions of goods and money(Coca Cola – provides water and $1m, (www.thecoca-colacompany.com/.../viewpoints_haiti_earthquake_relief_efforts.html ) Safeway over $100,000 from Canada to the Red Cross (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2010/15/c9018.html) and services. This response is outstanding example of how corporations can utilize their resources to contribute to the greater good.
As with any disaster, personal or private, the best responses from the community should happen in a timely fashion with assistance, comfort and supplies. Yet it is when the immediate danger has passed, when the trauma has just started to settle in, when the long term losses become so real, that those who have survived really need the support. Haiti will take years to rebuild and countless resources of time and finances – so two questions emerge. 1. Is it the role of corporations to continue to provide resources for this disaster? ; and 2. How does a corporation make its efforts in Haiti, or in any CSR endeavor truly sustainable?
Time has shown that during times of disaster and war there can be advancements made in science and health care…maybe the same can be said of our compassion? A recent Globe and Mail workplace poll of readers indicated that 51% of their companies were noted as contributing to the relief efforts in Haiti. Does that mean that those who are not contributing are not “good” companies? Are those who are contributing “better”? Are they doing so in a way that reflects their core competence? Are they doing so in a way that allows their contributions to be sustainable – both in terms of the needs to be met as well as their ability as a company to meet those needs? There is nothing wrong with giving something back via the contribution to relief efforts – these efforts speak to the notion of a “global community” – but in order to make a lasting change in the lives of Haitians and arguably the lives of employees or stakeholders – which companies are stepping up to be industry leaders or even world leaders and creating a sustainable and long-term commitment to Haiti? Contributions to disaster relief are to be encouraged, “give what you can” is a well worn and useful mantra. Given the resources of corporations however, the challenge resides in their ability to choose whether or not they can and should craft a responsible solution so that Haitians and the corporation can prosper over the long-term. To do so elevates the practice of CSR to be both a compassionate and strategic objective.