If part of growing up is learning to deal with criticism, CSR must be maturing fast. Attacks have come recently from unexpected directions, but that is generally more useful than predictable sources because it forces deeper questioning – and builds maturity.
Until recently the critics have generally been liberal economists such as David Henderson and Martin Wolf, who have argued that CSR is an interference with markets which will do more harm than good.
From the other side, the argument is that it doesn’t interfere nearly enough, and therefore will make too little difference. That criticism came recently from the New Economics Foundation in a Guardian article which cited British American Tobacco, BAE and Nestlé as evidence that markets do not necessarily reward the good guys and penalise the bad.
Elsewhere, brand consultant Suzanne Livingston told Financial Times readers that ethical products will always remain in a marginal niche because consumers are too stupid – or at least too irrational – to do the right thing.
The flames were fanned by news of Littlewoods’ retreat from fair trade following its purchase by the Barclay brothers, a story which will perhaps be repeated as hard times demand cost cuts in what have generally been the protected areas of environment and corporate responsibility.
These are the kind of stories which appeal most to journalists. Something concrete has happened, it’s not good news, and it’s not too complicated.
Complexity is hard for the media. Not because journalists are stupid and can’t get their heads round difficult issues (well, not always!). And not even because the form of most media – print and broadcast – demands short, simple truths, not conditionality. The main reason, disappointingly, is a culture which has devalued analysis. Editors want strong news stories, colourful features and opinionated columnists. Not much room there for thoughtful analysis which probes difficult issues, except on the really big subjects like the war against Iraq.
In this respect, the media is failing to meet its own responsibilities, which include challenging received wisdoms and enlightening readers/viewers/listeners.
That has been seen most starkly recently by the failure of the business media to do any decent analysis of company accounts, especially Enron, WorldCom etc. A recent article in the RSA journal by a former FT hack put this down to a lack of expertise, which is true to some extent, but the culture is more important. First, the culture of looking for news rather than analysis, but secondly the culture which wanted the dotcom hype to be real, and therefore was reluctant to question it too closely.
Coming back to CSR, the cultural influences are likely to see most media wanting CSR to fail. Those on the right will want it to fail because they think it’s plain wrong. Those on the left will be looking for failure as further evidence against big business.
That is why increasing maturity is needed. Maturity will need to be evidenced by CSR making a difference in the big wide world, but also by acknowledging the limitations. Suzanne Livingston is probably right to say that overtly ‘ethical’ products will never take over the supermarket shelves. The NEF article rightly criticised the Panglossian nature of much CSR publicity, which promotes the line that voluntary corporate CSR can solve all society’s problems.
Such an approach will not overcome the natural scepticism of journalists, never mind the institutional bias. Failure to demonstrate such maturity will lead to CSR remaining peripheral, especially to journalists who have, on the whole, never come to terms with the complexities of the area.
Maturity implies more than the one-dimensional picture often promoted by the CSR industry.
COMMENTS