Corporate Social Responsibility: What is there behind it?

For many people the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is becoming the new face of capitalism, as it claims for more social involvement from businesses, mainly in those countries where big multinational corporations make important profits.

A colleague told me recently, in a quite apologist way that: “CSR is the new commitment of business with society. Nowadays the big companies must seriously to consider and dedicate a key part of its staff in attending this issue. How to deal with the public opinion about the way the business is impacting socially and how it is doing good things for communities”.

Behind these words, I had an intuition: is CSR just a question of managing public opinion? I mean: it is a new management area created to “make up” the face of companies accountability? A term ‘made up’ to provide ‘make up’ for a companies public face? (It’s funny English language sometimes because it has tricky words: “make up” has a double meaning, to turn faces beautiful by using cosmetics and also, to invent a solution for a problem. A face invented. Could be?).

So, I tried to find out more about CSR and the real meaning it is having for businesses and for people. And I found that, for the most businesses, CSR is just a strategy, not about how to change and improve their behaviour through stakeholders (workers, consumers, society in which companies operate). It is more about showing a more acceptable public face, an attempt at ‘image management’ while keeping the same model of behaviour. For people and society, CSR is quite disappointing as it stimulates expectations of a real change of business methods (at a multinational level) that is not happening yet.

It was interesting that, some big companies such as Coca Cola, Shell or British American Tobacco are very concerned about being seen to be interested in CSR .They are dedicating a lot of resources to demonstrate, show, and persuade the public that they’ve become good neighbours in the countries where they are operating. Some of their campaigns related to the environment’s preservation, some of their charitable gifts to the communities or a new workers relationship management are mentioned. Good job, for their CSR staff. But what does it means in reality? What do workers and their families in the local countries have to say?

An NGO, Christian Aid, has an interesting report on it, with detailed information about the contradictions between what CSR says and what it actually does in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, Brazil and India. I’d like to quote a short excerpt of these reports here:

"Shell in Nigeria claims that it has turned over a new leaf there and strives to be a 'good neighbour'. Yet it still fails to quickly clean up oil spills that ruin villages and runs 'community development' projects that are frequently ineffective and which sometimes even widen the divide in communities living around the oilfields".

"British American Tobacco stresses the importance of upholding high standards of health and safety among those working for them and claims to provide local farmers with the necessary training and protective clothing. But contract farmers in Kenya and Brazil claim this does not happen and report chronic ill-heath related to tobacco cultivation".

"Coca-Cola emphasises 'using natural resources responsibly'. Yet a wholly owned subsidiary in India is accused of depleting village wells in an area where water is notoriously scarce and has been told by an Indian court to stop drawing ground water".

Capitalism is not a beautiful thing, nor inherently, it is a bad thing. For so many business managers, the ethical considerations are not a concern. Of course, when you put into balance profits and social responsibility in the annual business result of a company, the main weight should be in the revenues. It is expected by the shareholders but also by workers. This means more jobs guaranteed and better future expectations for them.

However, it is interesting to know whether the companies could stay still profitable under new demands and new constraints, for instance, new international and local legal frameworks that prevents and punishes some actions (not necessarily capitalist actions) such as the bribery of public officials by business people. Has CSR considered it?