CSR as a concept, and as a business discipline, has always had its critics.  How long will the language of ‘corporate social responsibility’ survive?  Julia Brown investigates.

"By some accounts, the first attempt to legislate for ‘corporate social responsibility’ was made by King Hammurabi in Ancient Mesopotamia around 1700 BC.  He introduced a code under which “builders, innkeepers or farmers were put to death if their negligence caused the death of others, or major inconvenience to local citizens”. (1)

Despite its grisliness, this is still an instructive story.  In a world where company directors are legally bound to prioritise the interests of their shareholders (and where UK laws on corporate manslaughter only came into force in April this year) you could be forgiven for wondering how far our systems for assigning responsibility for ‘corporate’ action have actually progressed.

In his 2005 re-take on capitalism (2) Jonathon Porritt didn’t beat about the bush.  He called CSR an “empty, seductive illusion” and pointed out that as long as it remains a “nice-to-do add-on” which is always de-coupled from core business strategy, CSR will never constrain most companies from the real ‘business of business’: maximising return to shareholders, at increasing cost to human and ecological well-being.

Other critics, including CORE (the Corporate Responsibility Coalition made up of 130 UK civil society organisations) have long argued that voluntary approach inherent in most definitions of CSR are fundamentally flawed.  They want ‘social responsibility’ to be replaced by ‘legal duty’, and see legislation as the only way to ensure the transparency and scrutiny that will sustain public trust in how companies operate.

CSR as a phrase is definitely under threat.  At a workshop at the London Business School in 2006, the majority of participants (from business, not-for-profit and government backgrounds) felt that the term CSR “could well be dead by 2015”. (3)    It’s interesting to compare Google search rankings for “corporate social responsibility” (4.61m) with those for “green business” (2.84m). “corporate responsibility” (2.71m) and “sustainable business” (1.45m) to see how different terminology is catching on.

Mistrust among consumers about corporate social responsibility (or at least about the honesty or verifiability of companies’ claims about climate change) is also on the rise.  In a 2007 poll for Consumers International and AccountAbility: (4)

• 70% of US and UK consumers said they wanted climate change claims made by business to be proven by independent third parties;
• Over half believed governments should be forcing businesses to phase out products that contribute to global warming;
• Only 10% said they trusted what business (or indeed government) tells them about global warming.

Meanwhile, complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority about ‘greenwash’ in UK advertising rose by over 400% between 2006 and 2007. (6)

Debates about the future of CSR will be very hot in the months ahead – and the prospect of economic recession is beginning to throw the cat among the pigeons for some CSR professionals.  According to an April 2008 online poll at Mallen Baker’s Business Respect website (www.mallenbaker.net) 18% of respondents believed that, in the face of an extended economic recession, companies would “drop CSR as an unaffordable luxury”.  And as food and energy costs continue to rise, questions of ‘corporate social responsibility’ on issues like fuel poverty or fairtrade are likely to become thornier than ever.

Is CSR on its last legs?  Watch this space."

1 Strategic Corporate Responsibility in Practice, J. J. Asongu, Greenview Publishing, 2007

2 Capitalism as if the World Matters, Jonathon Porritt, Earthscan, 2005

3 Corporate Social Responsibility at a Crossroads: Futures for CSR in the UK to 2015, IIED, 2006

4 What Assures Consumers?  Globescan survey for Consumers International and AccountAbility, June 2007

6 Advertising Standards Authority, Annual Report, 2007