By now you probably have seen some version of the IBM/Go Green commercial that starts in black and white with an employee and/or director seeking to make a pitch regarding why the corporation should engage in apparently environmentally friendly/socially responsible practices.  However, before the pitch begins, a stoic employer/board member rejects the pitch, basically on the grounds that the corporation does not find it appropriate to adopt such practices simply because they are favored by “tree-huggers.”  The employee responds by pointing out the economic benefits that flow from adopting the policies.  At this point, the commercial bursts into color and the Wizard of Oz Optimistic Voices Lyrics “You’re Out of the Woods, You’re Out of the Light” begins to play.  The message imparted: engaging in socially responsible/environmentally friendly practices is not about doing good, but about enhancing the financial bottom line.  Hence, we can all “step into the light.”  It is a cute commercial and it conveys the notion that corporations are socially responsible, or at least giving the impression that they are.  Yet I have wondered if these commercials send a message that could prove problematic for advocates of corporate social responsibility (“CSR”). 

To be sure, such advocates may view the commercials as a sign of victory.  At the very least, the commercials can be viewed as underscoring the point that consumers care about CSR, and hence corporations would be well-served in projecting an image that they too care.   Indeed, IBM’s website on CSR suggests that one reason why CSR efforts are important is that customers’ perceptions about CSR behavior impacts their purchasing behavior.  Perhaps more importantly, CSR advocates have long believed that one of the reasons corporations have been reluctant to embrace socially responsible behavior has been the inability to demonstrate a connection between that behavior and the financial bottom line.  In other words, the notion that companies should “do good” was an insufficient motivator for corporate behavior.  In this regard, the commercials seem like a positive sign for CSR advocates because they embrace the notion that such a connection exists, and thus provide an economic rationale that should enhance the likelihood that other companies will engage in such behavior.  To this end, a report on IBM’s website notes that companies are practicing CSR “in a manner that generates significant returns on to their businesses,” pointing out that “well-known companies have already proven that they can differentiate their brands and reputations as well as their products and services if they take responsibility for the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate.”  In this regard, linking CSR with financial returns generates the kind of behavior advocates desire and hence the commercials seemed to represent a positive development.   

And yet, by seeming to belittle the non-economic rationale for CSR, the message within these commercials also seems to embrace implicitly the notion that corporations should only engage in socially responsible behavior when clear economic benefits exist.  Such a message is potentially problematic.  This isn’t to say that corporations should not consider their economic bottom line when engaging in such behavior.  Studies indicate that the more profitable a company, the more likely it is to embrace socially responsible practices, and vice versa.   However, by suggesting that corporations should only act responsibly when a clear economic upside results, the message could decrease the likelihood that corporations will act without such clear evidence of financial return, even if they had the resources.  And this could pose problems, especially for long-term changes.  This is because even when socially responsible behavior has benefits, they are not always clear-cut, and there may be valid reasons to engage in behavior even when the economic benefits are not obvious.  Indeed, the IBM report also notes that “the more advanced view of CSR demands significant long-term commitment, and definition (or re-definition) of corporate values.  It can also require wholesale changes to the way companies operate.”  That sounds like CSR involves some serious costs while raising the possibility that benefits could be delayed or even uncertain.   This is certainly a more nuanced message than the one conveyed through the commercial.  By failing to capture this more nuanced picture, and instead suggesting that CSR is only warranted when there are clear financial rewards, the commercial could reduce the likelihood that companies engage in socially responsible endeavors except in the most limited ways.  

Of course, I realize that it is just a commercial, and one that has a good message.  Moreover, during these economic difficulties it is hard to think about companies doing anything but trying to pay heed to their bottom line.  Hence, it could be that the message within the commercials is the only message that will prompt action at least in the short term.  Nevertheless, it seems important for CSR advocates to at least preserve the notion that sometimes it is okay for a company to just “do good.”

Social Responsibility | Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e20105362ede11970b

Links to weblogs that reference Going Green: