CSR: Irrelevant and Ineffective?

In his recent WSJ article, Aneel Karnani makes a controversial argument against Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). He defines CSR as the increasingly popular idea “that companies have a responsibility to act in the public interest and that they will profit by doing so.” His basic argument against this idea is two-fold. First, he argues that if profits

and public interests are aligned, CSR is irrelevant. In the associated podcast he gives the example of Walmart using LED lights in their refrigerated cases. By using LED lights that are more environmentally friendly, Walmart also saves money, energy, and the labor cost of replacing bulbs. “But we don’t need to praise Walmart for being socially-responsible,” he says “they’re doing what is in their own self-interest.”

On the contrary, I suggest that CSR is not irrelevant. The fact that making a profit can coincide with making a positive contribution to society does not make that public good irrelevant. Walmart should be praised on both accounts: they are cutting costs and being socially-responsible. Through such publicity, other retailers will follow suit and Walmart’s public good will reverberate through the industry and LED may become the norm for refrigerated units. In this manner, CSR fosters the sharing and transferring of ideas that benefit people, the planet, and profits and brings those ideas to the fore to create positive social change. CSR aligns with Adam Smith’s recognition that self-interested pursuit can give rise to broader social benefits such as wealth creation. Those associated with the work of CSR focus on the potential for broader benefits and seek creative ways to contribute to the public good while increasing profits.

Second, Karnani argues that if profits and public interests are not aligned, CSR is ineffective and other methods of coercion should be employed to protect the public interest: government regulation, NGO watch-dogs and advocates, and self-regulation. Karnani makes a good point in this argument when he says that CSR may delay effective regulative measures by “greenwashing” or disguising destructive practices under the guise of social responsibility. For this reason, I agree with Karnani that the public good needs continual protection through laws and independent watchdogs. Yet this does not mean that CSR is completely ineffective as a means of coercion. The work of CSR can help to reframe the debate within a corporation. It raises broader questions of public perception, productivity, and employee satisfaction—all of which impact profit. Companies like REI and Starbucks, who attempt to create corporate environments that creatively integrate CSR into their corporate values have provided such a reframing, demonstrating that profits and public interests can be aligned in areas previously perceived as conflictual. For example, Starbucks has chosen to pay higher costs for their products than the market rate in order to build their brand on fair trade practices and quality goods. Promoting social responsibility has built loyalty within their markets and personnel and it has reframed the supply-side conflict between profits and public interests while demonstrating that CSR can effectively shape an organization from within. Certainly, the interests of the public cannot be upheld solely by corporations and, as in the case of Starbucks, watchdogs and consumer advocacy groups prove valuable tools in pressuring protecting the public and punishing unacceptable behaviors. Yet corporations who take seriously their responsibility to the public can contribute to society in a manner that is relevant, effective, and profitable.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in CSR Theory and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to CSR: Irrelevant and Ineffective?

  1. Angelia Smith says:

    You make good points about the new (yet old) concept of corporate responsibility. This is starting to extend to the waste streams corporations produce and corporations beginning to take responsibility for the packaging waste they produce. Your comments made me think of a company built solely around corporate waste responsibility–terracycle. They collect waste streams of juice packets and chip bags and make donations to charities sponsored by the companies that make the bags. It’s a fascinating business model that you should check out. http://www.terracycle.net/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s