The results of a recent corporate responsibility study – the Corporate Citizenship Study (CCS) – have experts befuddled. The CCS asked consumers to rank several corporations’ level of corporate social responsibility, or CSR (a corporation’s transparency in its practice and reporting of environmental, financial, and other policies). The results of the CSS were unexpected: consumers ranked several corporations (including Microsoft and General Mills) over other companies (including Pepsi, Coca Cola, Apple, and McDonald’s) deemed more socially responsible by the CRO 100 (a CSR policing agency that annually ranks corporations in its “Best Corporate Citizens” list).
Being included on the CRO 100 list is a coveted honor; 76 companies who failed to make the 2008 list reportedly contacted CRO to determine how to make the 2009 list. Understandably so; in an era of social, economic, and environmental crises, many corporations are under increasing scrutiny regarding their transparency. It seems inclusion on the list would attract consumers and improve consumer rankings. No wonder experts are perplexed.
There could be a number of explanations for the disparity. Perhaps the CRO 100 list, or the CCS, is incorrect. Perhaps consumers’ definition of “corporate responsibility” is skewed. Or, maybe consumers really do not know what they are consuming. (After all, nearly a quarter of U.S. consumers say they have “no way of knowing” whether a product meets its claims of being green, according to a study by the conscious consumerism-oriented marketing firm BBMG.)
But from a sustainable business standpoint, the numbers suggestion that consumers are uninformed highlights the importance of another form of transparency: making sure buyers are aware that socially responsible sustainable businesses exist, and of the benefits of choosing these companies. After all, if consumers’ perceptions of large, well-known companies are distorted, how much more skewed are their views of smaller, less well-known organizations likely to be?