I’m interested in whether you, or anyone else, feels there is any room for regulation in the realm of certification for CSR or the wider sustainability agenda.

Here I’m envisaging the implementation of tweaks to financial reporting regulations or moves to underpin basic standards and so provide a framework for inter-corporation comparability.

Compared with a year ago, when executives saw environmental issues and human rights standards more as risks than opportunities they now see these two issues and many others primarily as opportunities.

According to the same survey, 70% of NGO representatives describe corporate contribution to the public good as positive. Business executives on the other hand are significantly more critical of their own contribution, with 52% of business leaders viewing their contribution as mostly or somewhat positive.

How did we get into this antagonistic relationship? We got here because corporate social responsibility started as a response to various interest groups’ criticism of business externalities. We got here because corporate social responsibility got placed in marketing or public affairs departments, not in the office of the CEO. In the course of these non-core operations people defending often the indefensible, they dug themselves deep in the trenches and failed to notice that the war is over. The same applies to self-righteous NGOs and individuals who are bent on maintaining the status quo for their own financial interest as opposed to society or the environment.

The challenges of our time call for less ideology, less threats or blame games, but a renewed pragmatism of hope, collaboration and cooperation. The reality is that 51 of the 100 largest economies in the world today are corporations. We need to find a different way of dealing with our current realities, than perhaps our parents did in the 60s. More regulation is not likely to be one of the succeful ones. The recent demise of corporations in America & Europe prove that they, like the rest of us fellow mortal, have a life term!

The UK has recently passed legislation (Companies Act 2006) which, in theory, could see any shareholder taking the board to court for not performing their duties, when previously only another board member could do that.

The fear is that companies could get infiltrated by activists as shareholders who could cause merry havoc.

But from the more reasonable point of view this could be dangerously close to what you suggest.

What do other people think? Is it possible to entwine CSR and corporate activity together, or should they be kept separate (ie. CSR becoming regulated)?

Hmm. That sounds so doomsdayish….but CSR, if I understand the original Corporation concepts, was something we, as simple citizens, could insist upon by shutting down Corporations who violated social trust and responsibility. I don’t suppose it’s as easy as it was suggested it should be. But I like the original concept (if it was really like that).

Also…it would be responsible to have life-terms for Corporations just like we have for all living things. That could help manage responsibility.

Thanks for posting the article. It’s intriguing.

@Andile: I’m sorry that you didn’t find the facts you were looking for in my article, but you raise an interesting subject.

Many examples of how companies’ CSR activities have been beneficial for the communities within which they operate are published as case studies on their websites. This, along with demonstrating overall ROI on websites, is a subject Corporate Eye is very interested in. We’d like to hear the views of any of our readers on this topic – please feel free to comment below. Thank you to Andile for bringing this up.

To be clear: my suggestion is that if CSR is defined as being “a public good” then it should be a matter of regulation, not treated as a marketable commodity, to be valued, bought and sold. This is irrespective of the profitability, or otherwise, of CSR.