Corporate Social Responsibility:
It’s time to cry foul

by Gordon McIvor

Some of us, who have been long-time practitioners, advocates and observers of corporate social responsibility (CSR), believe that we have reached a crossroads of sorts, a tipping point. We see a disturbing tendency of some organizations to hijack a ride on the CSR bandwagon. It’s time we called their hand and put those spin doctors on notice. At the same time, it is important for us in the public sector to recognize the symmetry between the principles of CSR and ‘the public interest’.

CSR has caught on in a big way, with a growing cadre of corporate experts and a substantial foundation of policy surrounding it. And that is certainly ‘a good thing’. CSR is not only very real; it is necessary. However, as so often happens with core concepts that come into vogue, the whole concept has become watered down, misunderstood and shamelessly misrepresented.

There are many excellent definitions of CSR, especially from within the public affairs/public relations community – the professional community that has demonstrated the greatest leadership in this crucial realm. To me, CSR simply means making decisions and taking actions that contribute to the health of our planet, our economies, our communities, our citizens and our own organizations, particularly within the four pillars of sustainable development: economic, social, environmental and cultural.

Essentially, it’s what we in the public sector have done – or should be doing – to protect, preserve and promote the public interest.

Let’s be clear about why we should bother doing CSR. William Briggs and Archana Verma point to the top ten benefits in the latest edition (January/February 2006) of Communication World:

1.     Increased profits
2.     Increased access to capital
3.     Reduced operating costs/increased operating efficiency
4.     Enhanced brand image and reputation
5.     Increased sales and customer loyalty
6.     Increased productivity and quality
7.     Increased ability to attract and retain employees
8.     Potentially reduced regulatory oversight
9.     Reduced risk/increased risk management
10.     Keeping ahead of the market curve.


Good business sense
CSR is not philanthropy or altruism. In many ways, it is the mirror of philanthropy in that it actually contributes to economic viability. Nor does it mean making sacrifices or giving up business in the choices we make. Indeed, CSR represents opportunity.

At the Canada Lands Company, we have found that practising corporate social responsibility is also really about innovation. It is what we have always been about, or rather, what we should always have been about as a responsible state-owned company. Acting in a socially sustainable fashion is what we did in the past when we did our best. It is now part of our core thinking and goes into all of our planning and operations. CSR is an attribute rather than a task.

For example, designing and building an attractive Japanese-style footbridge over a storm sewer catchment basin can make prospective homebuyers see the area as suitable space for recreation rather than as a breeding ground for mosquitoes. In this instance, adding ethnic or cultural design elements compatible with the demographic make-up of the surrounding community makes public space not only more useable, but also more valuable.

That makes good business sense. When we look to the future use of federal government lands, whether that is managing redevelopment ourselves or through another option, we look beyond land value. We look at tradition, community and cultural development, jobs, wealth creation, resource use, environmental enhancement and, above all, people’s needs. While that doesn’t always avoid controversy, when we follow that route we know that we will meet with success.

In the public interest
To think that the whole notion of corporate social responsibility somehow isn’t valid in the public sector is, perhaps, one of the biggest fallacies about CSR. Indeed, because the public sector is that much more scrutinized than the private sector – by internal audit committees, external auditors, parliamentary committees, the media and the public at large on an almost daily basis – CSR or something quite like it is almost an imperative.

However, whether we report to Parliament or to shareholders, there remain non-financial benefits that can matter much more than the financial bottom line. For example, experience has taught us that there must be a true commitment to sustainable development for us to succeed, both as discrete organizations and as a nation as a whole. Mere ‘optics’ just won’t cut it.

In the public sector, we need to carefully examine our total operation, from how we hire people to how we ultimately serve the public at large. We must ensure not only that our standards and commitments are understood within our organizations, but also that the principles we share are entrenched in the policies and programs we develop. We must regularly gauge our progress and report on it to the constituencies we serve.

One of the biggest lessons of the recent Gomery Inquiry is that if we don’t hold ourselves to account, others will. And, we may not like what they find.

Down the up staircase
Unfortunately, what is truly a way of doing business better can become little more than a buzzword. Where CSR has become superficial, it is most often for two reasons. First, it has been driven from the top down or has been accepted on a purely intellectual level. To evolve effectively, the practice of CSR must be operationalized, driven from the bottom up and subject to constant ‘push back’ from the top. Its terms and concepts have to be translated into the local corporate culture, into daily operational, management and other languages.

The second reason, ironically, is its popularity. It has become too common a term, used too lightly for too many things, a practice that is ‘spun’.

There are far too many instances of companies practising what they call CSR because their peers do or because they think, or worse yet, have been told, that it is the ‘right’ thing to do.

Similarly, superficiality can, in fact, be created by administrative corporate speak. For example, though they are wonderfully laudable attributes in themselves, can any of us bring to mind a public sector initiative in the past five years that has not been described as ‘accountable, accessible, transparent and responsive’?

Such blatant misuse not only undermines the terminology, it also undermines the principles and practice of CSR, especially in an era where authority figures have lost credibility. Because of the bad behaviour of a few corporate leaders and politicians, all corporations and government leaders start with a credibility deficit. If terminology around CSR is corrupted or spun much further, we may even need to invent a new term.

Measuring up
Beyond operationalization, the needed component in CSR is common measurement. The momentum for effective measurement must come from inside the organization. While the public relations department may introduce CSR, it is the entire organization from the board of directors on down that must actualize it.

Measuring CSR performance is a key dynamic to the ‘buy-in’, demonstrating and quantifying the benefits of successful CSR implementation.

CSR is a way of doing business and a routine component of all decisions. It creates real, measurable results. It creates value. Once accepted, credible common tools to report those results will prove those benefits to advocates and skeptics alike.

Common measurement may also rescue a term that threatens to fall into increasing misuse and disrepute, allowing us to separate those organizations who merely ‘talk the talk’ from those that actually ‘walk the walk’.

There are a variety of ways to measure CSR, from the UN Global Compact, to the GRI guidelines, AA 1000, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001, Dow Jones Sustainability Index, Domini Social Index 400 and others. At the project or operational level, CSR itself must be simple, basic, integrated and, above all, measurable. Its measures must be equally basic and operational in nature and must be capable of demonstrating CSR’s success as well as its presence.

What we need now are more people to cry foul when organizations pay lip service to the notion or play fast and loose with the very real commitment that CSR demands. We need standards and benchmarks. The credibility and reputation of those who are genuinely engaged in the practice of corporate social responsibility depend on it.

Whether you operate in the public or private sector, corporate social responsibility is a way of doing business, not a cause to be championed.


Dr. Gordon McIvor is vice president of Public and Government Affairs for Canada Lands Company. He has served on numerous boards and committees and is a regular speaker on corporate social responsibility. He has received many honours throughout his career, including a Papal Knighthood from the Vatican.