This work responds to a set of questions associated with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which in themselves constitute common points of encounter and mismatch of criteria.
What is the role of the State in creating an environment conducive to CSR? How far are companies obliged to act for the benefit of society? Does the private sector have a real commitment, or is it part of your strategy to build image?
To this, among other questions, it is interesting to face making it clear that Corporate or Corporate Social Responsibility constitutes one of the keys to explain the necessary future of the business sector, the new scenario in which social organizations operate and the trend towards where we have to guide our steps.
I. What is the role of the State in creating an environment conducive to CSR?
Certainly the State can and must do a lot to promote CSR. The first is to align with its philosophy based on commitment and democracy, in order not to impose but to guide, sensitize and consistently reward the performance of organizations in this direction.
Of course, it is necessary to continue perfecting the legal tools that regulate key aspects such as environmental protection, safety at work, labor and salary policies, etc. This is an essential regulatory minimum of strategic interest.
The State will also have to continue supporting and inviting the application of standards and models of excellence in business management, all of which favor corporate social responsibility to a greater or lesser degree.
On the other hand, stimulating organizational forms centered on the cooperative association, an important historical antecedent of CSR, while joining a regional self-government scheme, has been the strategic option of some countries where good results could be expected. You can really be very creative if you have clear principles.
Summoning the "New Company Culture" should definitely be the most authentic and insistent ingredient in public discourse, and the hallmark of the visionary nature of government management that favors CSR.
II. Is it necessary for the State to regulate the activity of companies in matters of CSR? Where would voluntariness be?
This question connects to the previous one and complements it.
“Voluntariness”, here a central theme when we want to think about CSR. Being responsible in principle is an act of maturity, an act of love, understanding and dedication; it will never be the answer we give to external demands. We have seen that a lot and instantly the original intention is distorted.
Perhaps it is convenient to refer to that reading that marks a milestone in the field of CSR, the Green Book of the Commission of the European Community (2001) where it is clearly stated that CSR is “The voluntary integration, by companies, of the social and environmental concerns in its business operations and its relations with all its interlocutors ”.
It is impossible to dispense with the voluntary nature of CSR, it is an intrinsic feature of it, it represents the highest level of commitment and the State should work to promote it, recalling the old proverb: "We can take the horse to the river, but not make it drink."
III. Within CSR practices, does the private sector have a real commitment to the environment and society, or is it part of your strategy to create an image?
I think that the type of property (state or private) is not the crux of this question, although it could influence if we analyze the question from a basically theoretical perspective. However, it is a fact that in both cases the real commitment may be absent. We have all seen it, it has more to do with the leadership that is practiced, the values and organizational culture that define the company.
I would like to bring up, although there are paradigmatic contemporary examples, a case that is cited as an important historical memory of CSR. I'm referring to the industrial community that R. Owen created in 1820 in New Lanark. There, in the middle of the Industrial Revolution, cooperation and mutual support were the norms. This business leader introduced multiple welfare measures, public health, education, eradicated child labor. He was convinced that the human being is a result of the influences that he receives in the social bosom and he made an effort to suppress vices and modify the behavior of his people. That industrial community has been declared a World Heritage Site and is a monument to CSR.
But we will be able to find, paradoxically, state companies that barely try to "look good" with their "social commitments" and exhibit a chilling formalism, in addition to resenting themselves. I am sure that when CSR is imposed, the profit motive and the purely speculative sense of the business are exacerbated in the business community.
On the other hand, it does not seem necessary to establish a dichotomy between CSR and “marketing with a cause”. CSR integrates the environment, working conditions, quality… and also why not competitiveness.
CSR supposes “good organizational governance”, the extinction of rigid and pyramidal hierarchies, autocracy and business bureaucracy, in favor of Corporate Democracy. It implies a spirit of cooperation with clients, suppliers, competitors, governments; a concept of Corporate Citizenship as a commitment of the company to the community to which it belongs. All of these are sharp variables of competitiveness within the modern business world. In addition to streamlining management, making change and organizational learning feasible, they respond to and take advantage of the expectations generated by CSR to obtain competitive advantages.
"Appear or be?" It is definitely not a valid question when it comes to genuine CSR.
IV. To what extent are companies obliged to act for the benefit of society?
A company must act for the benefit of society at 110%. I don't want to imagine the situation of wanting to be cooperative and get involved "just a little, wisely." The consequences would be fatal and the hypocrisy enormous.
Companies were born with a vocation for service. They are not only called to generate goods and services with a social value of use, they are communities of people oriented towards an end, they educate values and this is extremely important to consider. In a company we can alienate ourselves until the disease or wake up with an action of training and development, a mentoring and feedback that leads us to change beyond the organizational sphere itself, becoming better people. In a company we can find a quality of life, compensation and support that is often absent in other social spaces.
But CSR is a need of greater magnitude. Note that the turnover of many multinationals exceeds the GDP of several developing countries. We expect companies, no matter their size, to initiate serious actions to solve so many problems of inequality and social sustainability, to implement measures to achieve the environmental salvation of the planet. The environmental deterioration of the planet is serious, with some of the most developed countries at the forefront of pollution, while the poorest degrade their remaining natural resources. This is an issue increasingly in the sights of global public opinion and the solution is as never before in the hands of a new type of businessman, a new man.
V. Who is making greater efforts in relation to CSR?
Considering that the modern understanding of CSR has its origin in Europe and the United States, it is logical that we look in that direction, but personally I am more excited about what is happening in Latin America where, between crises and traditions, CSR is forging an area that is consolidates. Here there is a diversity of understandings about the scope of the subject, but the responsibility of the company towards society appears frequently in the language of entrepreneurs and on the agenda of society.
This development to which I am aiming is evidenced in work objectives that coincide on issues such as: business ethics, quality of life (within companies), bonding and commitment to the community and its development, care and preservation of the environment, and the intention of forming a new business community that is more aware and proactive in this regard.
