Wake up daily to our latest coverage of business done better, directly in your inbox.
Get your weekly dose of analysis on rising corporate activism.
The best of solutions journalism in the sustainability space, published monthly.
Select Newsletter
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy. You can opt out anytime.
Disillusionment with CSR sets in. Just as CEOs have only two or three years to make their mark so it seems do concepts in the business world. It is almost tiresome to read your March 2004 piece citing CSR whiners. They have obviously joined the David Henderson camp (whom you cite in an earlier edition). That Christian Aid can produce a poor report - just look at their definition to find out why - does not mean we have to believe them.
It is time for 'CSR to grow up and address the systematic problems of globalization, or fade into irrelevance' states Jem Bendell. CSR is defined as the ethical treatment of stakeholders, be they internal or external to the organisation. That many decide to focus on companies' community or voluntary contributions doesn't mean that the concept of CSR is irrelevant.
I agree with Bendell that it would be very pleasant if the concept of CSR, as I defined it, could be used for the basis of analysis and corporate engagement. But does CSR have to grow up or simply the people who are working in the area? I guess we can just simply come up with another concept, corporate sustainability, corporate citizenship, corporate responsibility without the social, the ethical corporation or whatever and then find out after three years that the concept needs to grow up.
No, there has been real progress in the past five years or so from companies working on CSR, producing analytical reports and acting responsibly. More, much more is required. Certainly, if CSR does negatively affect their bottom lines then we can return to unbridled capitalism in the Exxon mode again. Please, those who rubbish concepts have a look at what they are really rubbishing.
Professor Michael Hopkins
Professor of Corporate and Social Research, International Centre for Corporate Responsibility and Business Performance, Middlesex University Business School
It is time for 'CSR to grow up and address the systematic problems of globalization, or fade into irrelevance' states Jem Bendell. CSR is defined as the ethical treatment of stakeholders, be they internal or external to the organisation. That many decide to focus on companies' community or voluntary contributions doesn't mean that the concept of CSR is irrelevant.
I agree with Bendell that it would be very pleasant if the concept of CSR, as I defined it, could be used for the basis of analysis and corporate engagement. But does CSR have to grow up or simply the people who are working in the area? I guess we can just simply come up with another concept, corporate sustainability, corporate citizenship, corporate responsibility without the social, the ethical corporation or whatever and then find out after three years that the concept needs to grow up.
No, there has been real progress in the past five years or so from companies working on CSR, producing analytical reports and acting responsibly. More, much more is required. Certainly, if CSR does negatively affect their bottom lines then we can return to unbridled capitalism in the Exxon mode again. Please, those who rubbish concepts have a look at what they are really rubbishing.
Professor Michael Hopkins
Professor of Corporate and Social Research, International Centre for Corporate Responsibility and Business Performance, Middlesex University Business School
TriplePundit has published articles from over 1000 contributors. If you'd like to be a guest author, please get in touch!
