Do we change the name of the discourse because of other stakeholders?

Special to Corpobligation - Chanda Tannis, BA, LLL 

    What are the roles of NGO's in Corporate Social Responsibility? This was a question and concern which was reflected during the Canadian Roundtables on CSR of extractive industries during 2007. It appeared that large and small corporations felt under 'attack' by NGOs and that corporations felt that NGOs were themselves not accountable. NGOs might for example, disseminate information to indigenous communities that made the company out to be worse than it really was. Consequently, the companies were not able to let the communities decide for themselves if the increased economic benefits outweighed possible downsides, such as environmental or cultural degradation, if that were to be the case in that specific community, that specific country, with that specific corporation. Does the fact that accountability is important beyond the "corporate" sphere mean that we should remove the "corporate" from CSR?

    Attempts to change the title of the discourse away from corporate social responsibility (CSR) to 'social responsibility' or 'community social responsibility' cause problems of accountability and clarity and they overlook the multifaceted nature of CSR. Corporations have a responsibility to act in a certain way. This does not mean that NGOs or other stakeholders should not also be held accountable, but by removing the word corporation from the title of the discourse, this seems to let corporations off the hook and disempowers other stake holders. My solution would be to extend the discourse to include other branches such as civil society social responsibility, and/or NGO social responsibility, etc..  To put them into one category makes things more ambiguous than they already are. For example :

Canadian Business for Social Responsibility (CBSR) defines CSR as "a company's commitment to operating in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner while recognizing the interests of its stakeholders. Stakeholders include investors, customers, employees, business partners, local communities, the environment and society at large."

CBSR notes that "CSR goes beyond good works such as voluntarism and charity". CBSR specifies that companies practicing CSR develop policies and programs in such areas as:

• * employee relations
• * community development
• * environmental stewardship
• * international relationships
• * marketplace practices
• * fiscal responsibility and accountability

If this is to be the case, than we should not change the discourse to be community responsibility or simply social responsibility because other stakeholders are involved. Local communities act as a stakeholder, but they too contain their own stake holders. The accountability of corporations, NGOs and governments are different in nature, and so are their incentives. We are evading the importance of corporations to take responsibility for their actions by removing them from the title of the discourse. It is harmful and does not necessarily address any of the problems that might be caused by other stakeholders.

These thoughts were inspired by meeting with a local MP who said that CSR is now called community social responsibility and by reading the following abstract.

Social responsibility is an evolving concept that currently does not have a universally accepted definition. It is generally understood to be the way organizations integrate social, environmental and economic concerns into their values, culture, decision making, strategy and operations in a transparent and accountable manner and thereby establish better practices within the organization, create wealth and improve society. Building on a base of compliance with legislation and regulations, social responsibility typically includes: commitments and activities pertaining to organizational governance and ethics; health and safety; environmental stewardship; human rights (including core labour rights); human resource management; community involvement, development and investment; involvement of and respect of indigenous populations; corporate philanthropy and employee volunteering; customer satisfaction and adherence to principles of fair competition; anti-bribery and anti-corruption measures; accountability, transparency and performance reporting; chains of production and distribution (domestic and international supply chain). These elements are frequently interconnected and inter-dependent, and apply to organizations wherever they operate. The foregoing is an adaptation of the definition of corporate social responsibility found in Government of Canada, Corporate Social Responsibility: An Implementation Guide for Canadian Business (forthcoming). While recognising that the discourse on the social responsibility of organizations focuses mainly on the business sector - and hence terms such as 'corporate social responsibility' (CSR) - this paper uses the generic term 'social responsibility' (SR) to reflect the growing recognition that there are societal expectations of all organizations: governmental, business and non-profit. For more, see the One World Trust reports 'Power without accountability?' 2003, 'Pathways to Accountability: The GAP Framework', 2005, and 'The Role of NGO Self-Regulation in Increasing Stakeholder Accountability', 2005. To find this abstract go to http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/csr-rse.nsf/en/rs00147e.html#execsum

See Other discussion on Corpobligation.com:

• Defining CSR and Corporate Obligation?
• Have we reached a peak of CSR action or rhetoric?
• About CO 
  

---