Sunday, March 11, 2012

HOOPLA! (I call BS) – an attention grabber to a post about CSR

Hello all,

I find this week’s topic and discussion particularly interesting because it has deep-tissue massaged my entire brain by contrasting the hardcore right side of financial statement analysis with the “softer” left-side of discussing corporate ethics and citizenship through social responsibility.

I plan on focusing more on how companies communicate their financials and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) SR efforts – and the potential effect and consequences of said communications- than on what this ratio means or pondering what CSR really is. For this post however, it’s all about CSR.

Of all the readings the one I found most appealing is The Economist’s 2008 interview with Daniel Franklin (Executive Editor). In my humble opinion Franklin writes a succinct and well exemplified summary of the CSR conundrum. Is CSR just corporate hoopla? Should it even exist? And answers the main question about CSR: what’s in it for the stake/shareholders?

In his article, Franklin mentions an article by Michael Porter and Mike Kramer from the Harvard Business Review (Dec 2006) that I think is essential reading for any discussion about CSR. Find the link to the “idea in brief” which serves as great cliff notes for the common 14-page articles in the HBR in the references for this post.

In this article, Porter & Kramer (2006) arrive to the conclusion that to become a competitive advantage, CSR must deliver benefits both to society AND to your business. Otherwise it’s just hoopla or a waste of money. A more recent study by the HBR (Eccles, Ioannus & Serafeim, 2011) confirms the bottom line value of CSR.

Eccles, Ioannus & Serafeim (2012) , conclude by saying “Firms that embrace corporate social responsibility practices significantly outperform rivals that don’t embrace those practices, as measured by both financial and stock market returns. Firms with a history of commitment to sustainability and social issues also boast more long-term investors and place a greater emphasis on making nonfinancial disclosures.

I think his makes for a great closing to this post and a great discussion starter.

Looking forward to your thoughts!

JMA

References

Franklin, D. (2008) Just Good Business: A Special Report on Corporate Social Responsibility, The Economist, January 19, pp.1-14 (full article)

Porter, M. and Kramer, M.(2006) : The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility - Harvard Business Review – Retrieved from http://bit.ly/wQ8vWc

Eccles, Robert G., Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G. (2012) The Impact of a Corporate Culture of Sustainability on Corporate Behavior and Performance. Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 12-035 – Retrieved from www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/12-035.pdf http://bit.ly/xGQbvn

3 comments:

  1. Javier, the Economist article notes that there are three layers of CSR: philanthropy (writing checks), risk management, and the creation of value. Do you see effective CSR as only the last choice, or can the other two help society and your business? Also, how should an organization choose an issue to address? Would choosing any generic social issue add to the bottom line?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Javier,

    I like your choice for article use this week - I had summarized the exact same article for my post. I think CSR is quite a necessary objective for any organization, and one that should not be taken lightly. If it is done in a strategic manner, and done by targeting specific initiatives that your company is passionate about, the results can be tremendous for your organization's public relations and its stature within the community. I would be very much interested in seeing your thoughts on this a little more.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I almost selected this article, too! I see CSR as co-existing with financial strategies (Franklin, 2008). In my opinion, there is a great deal to be gained by having a business strategy attached to a social responsibility strategy. Not only because it helps non-profits, the environment or other global causes, but it really allows strategic alliances to be formed. People lik to feel good about where they work (Franklin, 2008) and having a company that is doing good and well can be attractive to investors, employees and generate great press for the company. Plus in international setting, it can foster relationships that will pay off in real money in long-term investments.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.