Corporatesocial
responsibility has come a long way since 1970, when economist Milton
Friedman called its advocates “unwitting puppets of the intellectual
forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society for three
decades.”
In fact, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has a
completely different meaning in the 21st century, when more and more
firms anticipate and take responsibility for the impact of their
operations on communities and the natural environment.
Professor
Gene Laczniak, who teaches business ethics at Marquette University,
said Friedman’s verdict on CSR is hopelessly obsolete. “The purpose of
business is not to make a profit; it’s to serve the economic needs of
society while being rewarded with a profit,” he said.
Laczniak
said the CSR movement is partly a response to a scandal-weary and
economically stressed public. “Middleclass wages have remained stagnant
for 25 years or more, and the baby-boomers who run these companies are
more politically aware than the generation before them,” he said.
He
added that globalization and environmental concerns have also boosted
CSR among American corporations. “Globalization has brought an
amalgamation of values to U.S. business. European, Asian and North
American cultures are affecting each other. Even European socialism has
filtered into our thinking,” Laczniak said.
Laczniak said CSR
is good insurance against a PR nightmare or future regulations that
adversely impact a company. “Doing well while doing good is possible,
but if it didn’t cost companies to be ethical, then every company would
be ethical,” he said. “It’s better to be ethical than not ethical, and
perceived as such.”
Bob Karnauskas, president of BL3
Strategies, a Pewaukee-based consulting firm, said that socially
responsible companies perform well because they can attract and retain
quality workers and reduce risk from lawsuits and bad publicity.
What’s
more, a socially responsible company’s products or services will be
seen more positively, in what marketers call “the halo effect.”
“Environmental and social performances are tangible business assets
that complement conventional financial performance,” Karnauskas said.
Karnauskas’ firm offers a “triple bottom line” model for corporate
decisionmaking that takes into account new financial, social and
environmental realities.
“Corporations can no longer operate
as if they are insulated from environmental and social risks and
maintain the confidence of their stakeholders,” he said. Karnauskas
said that larger companies have embraced triple bottom line thinking
for years, and the practice is spreading to smaller companies. “Target
Corporation donates $3 million a week to corporate philanthropy,” he
said.
“Subaru has a plant in Indiana that has zero landfill
waste. It’s what customers and company stakeholders have come to
expect.” Yet despite its growing acceptance among business people, CSR
still has its critics. Writing in Forbes Magazine in November
2006, Betsy Atkins, CEO of Baja Ventures, said, “The notion that the
corporation should apply its assets for social purposes, rather than
for the profit of its owners, the shareholders, is irresponsible.
“There
are practical reasons why corporations should cloak themselves in the
politically correct rhetoric of social responsibility,” she added. “But
marketing should not be confused with significant deployments of
corporate assets.”
But Karnauskas sees CSR as yet another
variation of business risk management. “No company wants to find itself
in the same place as Enron, or Union Carbide,” he said. The public is
tired of bailing out failed corporations, and cleaning up superfund
sites that result from improperly disposed hazardous waste. A recent
Harris Poll indicates that 70% of Americans don’t trust big companies.
“Companies
pay dearly for those kinds of mistakes, and we have learned to manage
these types of risks in a way that can be profitable, in the long run,
to companies,” Karnauskas said.
This is the first publication of our New Economy column. The next column will appear in the April 24 issue.