One issue that regularly arises in a discussion of corporate social responsibility relates to the motives of the companies. Are they really trying to “do the right thing?” Or, are they pursuing good purely for marketing reasons?

Critics scoff at the practice of social responsibility, when incongruent with the company’s overall actions, and call it greenwashing, a decoy, a façade, a deception, and the like. In other words, selective actions are not reflective of what the company is doing, but rather a superficial ploy to mask the fact that the company is indeed unethical or socially irresponsible. Enron, for example, had a great code of ethics and was a contributor to many community projects.

Are these examples of “doing the right thing” actually wrong? Of course, society generally and stakeholders specifically should examine the approach of companies, especially when they are trying to present their actions as reflective of an overall approach to business.

The public has a right to review actions and point out inconsistencies with the messages being presented. I think it is important to distinguish the value of the concept of social responsibility and the inability of all companies to carry through on its execution. Just as there are examples of shortcomings there are many examples of companies doing well.

I believe that the key point is that we should recognize that it is actually important to be perceived as a positive corporate citizen. Some companies will lead the way by being genuinely committed to making a positive difference in their communities. Other companies may be implementing programs for the sake of being seen to be good corporate citizens.

I think it would be mistake to discourage those companies that have not matured sufficiently in their approach to corporate social responsibility. If we think they are hypocritical, should we tell them to stop trying to contribute to society? Should we discount someone’s contribution if there are any self-serving motives or it they receive any benefit whatsoever?

We can reference philanthropy in general. McGill alumnus Seymour Schulich is a well-known philanthropist in Canada. He has succeeded wildly and has focused his largesse on Canadian education institutions. There is the Schulich School of Business at York and the Schulich School of Music at McGill. In his autobiography (Get Smarter: Life and Business Lessons) he explains that he wants to make a difference and that he wants his family name to live on as a legacy. Would we prefer that he builds himself a bigger mansion?

With businesses I believe there are different dynamics. Companies are legal persons. They are members of the community and should be viewed as contributors to the community. Stakeholders want to know what a company is doing. Companies should be talking about what they are doing in order to inform the community and to show leadership.

Even when the actions are somewhat self-serving they can still be commendable. For example, law firms may give out scholarships to law school students, various prizes, with the intent of positioning themselves favourably with the cream of the crop. Should we instead wish that the law firm did nothing? No. Should we wish that they simply gave money anonymously so that would be pure? But, that would be difficult since the value of the named commitment leads to more interaction with that community.

Not long ago companies were viewed as simply to focus on making money. We should celebrate the fact that companies are now to have giving profiles. Despite the fact the companies may be criticized, they should persist in positive actions.

If a company has given some money to a particular cause, we can applaud it, but it doesn’t mean the company is entirely pure in whatever it does. It is an admirable act that we should encourage while at the same time holding companies accountable. We should also recognize that companies are at different stages of achieving holistic CSR.

Tagged as: csr, makegood, rick goossen