It still
strikes me that people look surprised when I talk to them about CSR (Corporate
Social Responsibility). To many, CSR is just a fashionable word for ‘greenwashing’,
a handy way to disguise activities that are far from ‘responsible’ at all.
Others see CSR as an argument to attract a new breed of clients, or a way to attract
Generation Y employees who –according to plenty of surveys- would prefer to
work for a socially responsible employer.
To counter
this skepticism I often explain that CSR is increasingly getting to the core of
corporate strategy. Even better: in many industries CSR has become an
imperative. To show why, let us take a look at this graph:
The vertical axis shows the source of motivation for CSR: is this imposed by society, or is it a company’s own initiative? The horizontal axis shows the impact of CSR on a company: does it involve its core business, or does it only impact the ‘business periphery’ (the context) of a company?
We now obtain
4 segments, each reflecting a different behavior to CSR:
The lower
left segment (‘must do’s’), where CSR is imposed by society but touches the
business’ context, is where we find activities that companies must comply with.
A fair treatment of employees, honest communication, compliance with the law,
etc. Nothing too exciting here.
In the
upper left segment (‘good to do’) we find the numerous corporate foundations
that each company from a certain size feels obliged to possess. This space is
pretty crowded, and hence offers little room for competitive differentiation. In
a certain way this segment is responsible for the skepticism I talked about
earlier: what good can we expect from the foundation of an oil company when,
due to bad practices, the mother company causes a natural disaster?
But it
starts to get really interesting once the CSR activities touch the core
business of corporations. The lower-right segment (‘major threat’) is clearly a
danger zone companies would want to avoid. Think of how BP had to review its
activities after the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Or think of Coca Cola,
whose products were boycotted for years throughout India because of its bad
management of water in a plant in the Southern State of Kerala. This factory
was located in a region that is increasingly suffering from water shortage,
hence the anger of the local farmers for Coca Cola’s water spoilage, and
ultimately the boycott throughout India. To be fair with Coca Cola: they since
reviewed the water usage of their
factories, and even win sustainability awards with it. In each threat lies an
opportunity…
Now to my
point: in order to still gain competitive advantage from the overpopulated ‘corporate
foundation’ activities, and to avoid the threat of society imposing changes on
companies, more and more companies move to the upper right segment (‘major
opportunity’), where the core activities of a company are used to do social
good. Google.org is a good example of this, since it uses plenty of Google’s tools
at the disposal of aid organizations after a natural disaster. Some would call
this a clever way to position its products favorably (‘cause marketing’), but I
just wonder how many day-to-day users of Google know about this initiative…
Other
examples include the many traditional energy providers who increasingly put
sustainable energy at the core of their long-term strategy. Or take technology
company Siemens, that recently completed a reorganization where each business
unit now focuses on resolving one specific societal challenge (ageing population,
mobility, sustainability, etc). But the most impressive example is probably
Umicore, who transitioned from a (dirty) mining and natural resources company
into a world-class recycling company, and now consistently appears in the lists
of most sustainable companies worldwide.
This
movement becomes inevitable in many industries. The two ‘forces’ we discussed
are driving companies to put their core products at the service of their CSR
activities. But there is a third force at play: in this segment companies face an
increasing competition from social entrepreneurs, who very often threaten the
overall business model of the industry, and at any rate are eating market share
from traditional players. Pure providers of green energy are a good example of
this, but also the multiple initiatives that have to do with the ‘sharing
economy’, which are forcing traditional players to at least ask themselves the (vital)
question whether they should join or fight this movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment