In many ways, my strategic CSR framework emerged out of an attempt to reframe the discussion around CSR, sustainability, and related 'business and society'-type labels. In that view, the "business case" for CSR/sustainability has failed, largely because companies are no longer listening. Sure, they pay enough attention to know when a fad has risen to the level where they can potentially make money from it (e.g., ESG), but they are not listening at the level that might lead to meaningful change. The article in the url below captures one reason why that might be:
"Fire-fighting foam starves the flames of oxygen. A handful of overused words have the same deadening effect on people's ability to think. These are words like 'innovation,' 'collaboration,' 'flexibility,' 'purpose' and 'sustainability.' They coat consultants' websites, blanket candidates' cvs and spray from managers' mouths. They are anodyne to the point of being useless."
In short, language matters, with inaccurate words understood as 'business jargon' that demonstrates the user's lack of knowledge or expertise, as much as anything else (a problem that has spilled over into business schools – "change management," anyone?). In the article, the author makes a compelling argument as to how to identify rhetoric that is particularly ineffective:
"The words are ubiquitous in part because they are so hard to argue against. Who really wants to be the person making the case for silos? Which executive secretly thirsts to be chief stagnation officer? Is it even possible to have purposelessness as a goal? Just as Karl Popper … made falsifiability a test of whether a theory could be described as scientific, antonymy is a good way to work out whether an idea has any value. Unless its opposite could possibly have something to recommend it, a word is too woolly to be truly helpful."
Add to this the idea that executives in a company already have their own definitions/perceptions of CSR and sustainability-related terms, so have already decided they are for/against/ambivalent, whatever. As such, the goal of strategic CSR is to instead reframe the debate in terms of "value creation" for stakeholders ("sustainable value creation"). My reasoning is that if every CEO/executive/manager gets out of bed every morning to do anything, it is to create value. While the challenge remains to understand what stakeholders want (how they define "value"), once you engage the discussion in terms of value creation, the related ideas and concepts become central to every aspect of the organization. There is nothing a business does that is not related to value creation.
Thus, while "value creation" does not strictly pass the author's test (i.e., no one wants to 'destroy value'), if you take this concept seriously within a stakeholder model focused on creating value over the medium to long term, the essential trade-offs and competing priorities mean that a firm cannot create value for all of its stakeholders, all the time.
In addition, of course, "value creation" is already widely-accepted and understood within firms. As such, it is the key to moving the discussion forward because it is doing so on the terms of those who may otherwise be hostile to the symbolism of much of the mainstream CSR/sustainability discussion.
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
The wooliest words in business
May 14, 2022
The Economist
Late Edition – Final
63
