Standing in the Gap, Part 1

I spend a good deal of time commiserating with my colleagues and leaders about something called corporate social responsibility. And while its rhetoric swells around this spinning, melting ball of a planet, I am relieved—even encouraged—to hear some of my peers across industry starting to address it in common-sense, bottom-line terms.

Milton Friedman got it half-right: businesses exist to make money. I take exception with his edict, however, that making money is the sole social contribution businesses should make. Combine any number of factors—the weak dollar, the price of oil, national debt, global warming, S&P performance, epidemic personal debt, product safety issues, and increased noise from activists and stakeholders—and I struggle to believe that he’d stand by that principle today.

Then again, maybe he would. A good number of business and political leaders, including some of my colleagues, still embrace Friedman’s proverbs, largely at odds with the pressure to account beyond the financials.

Perhaps we’ve forgotten—or don't care—that some of our most revered “corporate citizens” were once branded, soulless pariahs for putting profits ahead of people or the planet, at any cost. Think of some of the most socially hip brands out there, and chances are they were dragged a decade ago into the court of public opinion, kicking and screaming, to atone for their social and environmental sins. Today, they do a brilliant job promoting their born-again status while hawking shoes and t-shirts.

Someone who takes a daily Friedman supplement can get comfortable with CSR by looking first for the hidden value it can uncover. Yes, you can be accountable and profitable. It takes a little time, some leadership courage, and a willingness to look up from the ledger and around at the operations.

For instance, businesses create carbon emissions, and they can figure out ways to lower them and preserve profits. (Turn off the lights!) They can watch their supply chain more closely, and they can consider the true parity of the compensation and rewards structure. They should examine the business from both sides of the CSR coin, since social and environmental concerns are rarely disparate. And while it’s still hot to slap a green label on anything, they should use caution when attempting to promote “green” or “social change,” which without true evidence is disingenuous—or, as one of my more liberal-leaning colleagues put it, “like a Band-Aid on a shotgun victim.”

No matter what the business-book-of-the-month tells us, a company must find its own ways to be more socially and environmentally accountable. What the business really needs are executives and leaders who truly want to make a difference, and are willing to not only tackle the issues ahead of the criticism, but uncover the revenue streams and cost savings from it. I know very, very few business peers with such gravitas.

Oddly enough, profits and consumer spending will likely be the key motivators for most businesses, public or private, to truly account socially and environmentally for the business. Companies have a choice: wait for the shareholder and consumer to ask, or get moving.

I fear, given the mindset of many of my colleagues, that some of us will continue to wait.

Responsibility is the price of greatness. -Winston Churchill, 1943

Comments

[Whatsername]

Dang! My decoder ring must be busted.

[Mark]

I like your other personality better. The writing too. This one is full of jargon you are normally good at making fun of.