I have read a couple of days ago a recent article, “Is CSR failing?” by Wayne Visser posted on CSRinternational.
He is a CSR supporter but he emphasizes that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has failed to reduce social “bads” like poverty, human rights abuses or environmental degradation and argues that CSR needs to evolve exactly like the Internet from 1.0 to 2.0. CSR 2.0 has to achieve three objectives: connectivity, scaleability, responsiveness.
David Henderson, admits that corporations should behave responsibly but does not agree with the concept of CSR that is used now. Basically, he thinks that the justification provided for CSR actions is not correct and that CSR is not going to make the world a better place but it will bring it more harm.
So, ironically, CSR supporters and critics agree. Of course, there are plenty of nuances in the CSR debate, but I think that it is obvious that CSR has not helped much in reducing “social bads” like environmental degradation or human rights abuses. Actually, some commentators think that it was an utopy to expect that.
The question is how to achieve objectives like connectivity, scaleability or responsiveness. Through which mechanisms. How to enhace the complementarity between CSR instruments and legal mechanisms. Moreover, it is about designing coherent policy frameworks.
In the last weeks, many have asked themselves if the recent financial crisis has a negative impact on CSR activities. In a recent report, the GRI considers that the financial crisis should be seen as a driver for policy-making based on sustainable development principles. In this process, sustainability reporting, says the GRI,
“is a tool that can help to achieve this goal as it facilitates transparency and accountability, enables like-for-like comparison between organizations’ sustainability performance, and through the process of gathering data and information, it creates optimal conditions for new sustainability systems to be established within organizations. “
