A recent spat between the Institute of Public Policy Research and the Institute of Directors presented the CSR debate with a rare outing on mainstream TV. While the pundits discuss companies’ CSR credentials, Roger Cowe asks what it will take for the reality to match the rhetoric.
Twenty four hours around December 4 and 5 summed up a year’s CSR developments, especially as far as the media is concerned. Dozing gently through Newsnight on the 4th I was suddenly alerted by mention of corporate social responsibility. It was such a shock to find Newsnight covering the issue – in those terms – that the thought crossed my mind I might actually be asleep and dreaming. But no – there was Bovince (the East End printing company) and Steve Hilton (of Good Business). Alas, there was no Stephen Timms being grilled by Jeremy Paxman, because the item was not about government policy. It had been prompted by the fascinating spat between the Institute of Public Policy Research (the unofficial New Labour think-tank) and the Institute of Directors.
These two unlikely partners cooperated on some joint research to discover what Britain’s businesses are really doing about CSR. The answers were clear to each of them – but not the same. The IoD thinks the picture is rosy, the IPPR tends to black.
First the media point in this. It reinforces the recurring message that disagreement and conflict make news much more easily than consensus. Of course, the fire fighters settling their dispute is newsworthy, but short of that, splits in their ranks or in the government are much more interesting than solidarity. It is also interesting, though, that the Newsnight item devoted a significant amount of time and effort (in TV terms) to the underlying issues. Film and interviews at Bovince explored what CSR means and why it might be in companies’ interests. And the interview with Steve Hilton probed why CSR doesn’t generate more interest (‘too boring’, was his line). The actual dispute between the IoD and the IPPR also has interesting media implications. To some extent it is a matter of the glass being half-full or half-empty, and it is no surprise that IoD takes a more benign view.
But the essence of the difference between the two organisations is that IPPR wants to see evidence of corporate responsibility, not just sweet words. For example, the IoD was impressed by the number of companies saying they take issues such as diversity seriously. Their erstwhile partners were less impressed by the fact that many of those companies have no idea about the make-up of their workforces. That kind of lacuna justifies media scepticism about the business world’s credentials. Fine words butter no journos, as it were. If companies want people to believe they take their responsibilities seriously, they have to prove it. Which brings me to the other significant event in that 24-hour period – the annual meeting of Business in the Community. This was billed in the Financial Times as BitC “turning on its own members”, which was a slightly excitable interpretation of the organisation’s call for members to pull their fingers out. The companies “at the back of the bus” were told that it is high time their performance on community, environment, diversity and in the market was rather closer to the leaders at the front of the BitC vehicle.
BitC is absolutely right, of course, that it is not enough for companies just to pay their subs and sit back. That is rather the same message as the IPPR was conveying. And it opens up the possibility of the best CSR story for a long time – the first company to be kicked out of BitC for not living up to the organisation’s principles in practice.
Chairman David Varney says that might happen, but hastily adds that it won’t be for a while. (After all, membership organisations lose money if they expel members, which makes it a bit tricky, even if it does encourage the others.) Oh well, back to the IoD for the next CSR story.
COMMENTS