2 weeks ago I attended a round table devoted to Corporate Social Responsibility, or CSR (organized by AIESEC in Moscow).
CSR is one the areas I am passionate about, so I was extremely glad to participate in the mentioned event.
In order to keep the key learning points that I go out of discussions, I am posting them to this blog.
Some of them might be seen as obvious; however, it was important for me to clearly understand basic things, although I read books about CSR before.
First presentation got us into the topic and underlined 3 main challenges of CSR in Russia:
* not developed reporting system for CSR activities
* CSR is not a part of the general strategy of the company
* CSR is still perceived as a charity activities, although it includes 2 additional aspects
Eugeny Tutkevich, top manager of MDM-bank, pointed out another interesting question, and instead of talking about importance of CSR for companies, gave 5 reasons why companies should not do CSR:
* CSR is not the first priority for the company as it aims on making profit
* Companies pay lots of taxes, so it’s the job of government to do social work
* Charity attracts attention of government
* The more you give, the more people will ask you for
* “If I am asked to sponsor road building, why should I give the money if a road will be built anyway?”
Conclusion: company that doesn’t do CSR activities has far more benefits than the one who does!
So WHY CSR in this case? Because of 2 main reasons:
* Sustainable development: operating at present times company creates sustainable future for itself
* Stakeholders
Then, there are 3 aspects/levels of CSR in a company:
I – stakeholders (company acts in sustainable manner with its stakeholders, e.g. ethic way of doing business)
II – personnel (programmes for employees: corporate culture, motivation, rewards & recognition, promotion within company)
III – regional community where company operates (e.g. environmental programmes)
Another interesting point that caught my attention is that company should have such CSR policy that reflects its core work.
After introduction several companies shared their examples of CSR policies:
- bank declines credit interest rate for some groups of people e.g. young married couple with children;
- educational projects about healthy food of food company
- building a computer club for school children (example of IT company) or scientific institute (FMCG company)
- “green products”: TV set that consumes less energy, much higher lifetime reliability etc.
- providing opportunity for disabled young people to do internship in a company
- free professional education for employees
- developing pension system for a city for free
The concept of sustainable development for a company is based on the idea that it helps society which will consume company’s products in the future. As in the example of education of healthy lifestyle: company increases amount of healthy people, thus ‘create’ healthy society. Many companies focus on a help for children, because this is children who are future society!
And, the last point that was mentioned: it is government that should show to business what areas to focus on.
***
I really feel like reading more and more about the topic, besides will be certainly looking for CSR internship at one point of time!
Jun 6, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Katya, it's very nice to read about CSR round table in your blog. It's really amazing that just one's random idea fulfills in that way and influences on many other people!;):)
If you don't mind I would share my points about CSR with you here. Fortunately I'm able to compare western and Russian perception of CSR, as I have been to international CSR conference before.
The most impressive thing about CSR that changed my understanding of it in that conference was that CSR IS A STRATAGY of the company. It's the way it acts every day, every it's employee acts no metter in what department he works.
The 3 components that were shown on the round table is only the one way how we can devide CSR into parts. For example in one international company they see CSR as a piramid were the lower basic part is core work which means quality of production, integrity about the production etc., the second level consists of 2 parts - employees and other stackholders, the third level is Cause related marketing and the top of the piramid and the top of the iceberg of CSR is philanthropy.
CSR and charity differs and the difference is that if company acts social responsible it's not because it has too much monney but because it thinks about it's own future and invest in it. That company see it's own real benefits of its' CSR activities. And they are a part of development stratagy of the company for it's future. That's why CSR activities of the company should be connected with it's core activities (ex. if the company produces software it would be better make project on computer literacy of unemployed ppl that would bring it new costomers than do anything else not conected with computers).
I can tell more, but these are core things to my mind, maybe you already knew it.
Anyway even thought I have organized round table I was surprised that so many companies in our country were ready to speak about CSR and impact into society:) even thought there is a room for improvement of CSR of some of them, like not observance of work-life balance of employees for example.
Ljuba
Hi, Katia! :)
Let me share some thoughts too,
1) The principle goal of a company's existence is to maximize shareholder wealth and not to improve the society. And it is simply rational for people to do with their money what they want to - so nobody is obliged to be "socially responsible", and it would be unfair to force people to give their money out for charity unless they really want to.
2) CSR can be seen as an investment in your own market - but there are also several problems involved with it:
- It is an investment of a very long-term nature: say, if an IT company gives several computers to a school, it will take not less than 10 years for the children who use these computers to grow up and become the company's potential clients or employees. As our economy just seems to be getting on the right path (hopefully this will go on) people are not quite used yet to investing for decades ahead – this will naturally change by the time, and it’s good that there are people who move the situation towards that change!
- The profits for the company from this investment might be difficult to estimate in numbers (incl. because of its very long term nature), therefore giving money out for CSR may be a kind of “blind” investment that may not necessarily give benefits in the future that would cover the expenses.
3) An other point would be that business innovations themselves are usually "socially responsible" too: "green products" are more marketable; and production technologies that help save energy and resources are attractive to both businesses and the society.
4) The state should just not mix into the businesses’ activity and give them nothing but information to think about. Just let them decide themselves what to give their own earned money out for – that’s my point of view :)
PS already subscribed to ru-mo-ex-eb? ;)
Hey Ljuba and Sasha!!
Thanks a lot for your comments, they added some good points to the systematic view on things :)
However I think that your perspectives are different.
If CSR is a strategy this means that company should have measurable indicators to define wether the strategy works and what results/benefits it brings.
If CSR is like a principle (because, as Sasha said, investments are too much long-term to be seen and measured) it changes the approach.
So, in these two cases, the role of CSR department in the company is different. Does a company actually need CSR department if managers perceive it as a principle of company's work and its elements are present in all departments?
And what are the responsibilities of CSR departments in foreign companies? (I guess in Russia they have more work as the biggest part of CSR here is charity)
I will also share some more point that was mentioned on round table. Real CSR fulfills 3D principles (in Russian):
* Additional (это дополнительная активность компании)
* Voluntary (добровольная)
* Business oriented (деловая, пересекается с миссией компании)
I agree with idea that company can and even should do CSR activities for marketing benefits and getting profit, but something makes me doubt.. What is the first priority in CSR? What is the first question that managers, lets say, of the bank, ask themselves before decreasing interest rate for the credit? Do they think as "how much profit will we need and what we can get out of this action?" or "there is a problem in society that young couples are not able to pay high % for credit, what can we do?"
Do you see the point? Which question is first? :)
Yeh, that's an interesting topic:)
PS No, i am not subscribed because of wrong email. I will send you the right one!
Oh, and about "government that says business where to invest".
I meant the situation when there is a strategy and long-term plan for country development, and thus the priority areas/spheres for the country.
If business know it and invest in exactly these spheres, the effect of CSR will be more valuable for the country.
Hey, Katya!
I'll try to answer your questions.
To my mind CSR is a principal and a stratagy at the same time.
In most of Social Responsible companies there are no special CSR departments, niether in Russia nor in Poland where I have been at CSR conference. As we can see from 7 companies that were presented at our round table one person is a manager of charity progects, others are corporate affairs managers, ER managers, business developmet specialist and vice-president. But still all of them have a developed concept of CSR and it's realisation. Actually from 3 more companies who were going to take part in round table one person is a manager of charity programms and 2 are CSR managers. But still you see these are the best copmanies. Few companies have special departments even in Europe. There are usually a couple of people in company from ER or PR department who are responsible for that, and CSR could be even not the only thing they do. But for example it's HR responsibility to co-ordinate and control that all the employees know about that principal and follow it. If there is special CSR departments I think it is they role to co-ordinate all the processes and all the levels of CSR in a company.
And about the second question. Once I have been on presentation of one leading company. They said: we are already the bigest company of our sector, we don't have to think about how to ocupy new territories and fight the competitors, we should only think how to stay the best. And then the president of that company continued asking us what problems we see in healthcare in Russia as it was medical company and telling what they do to solve it. So to my mind the companies are like people at Maslou piramid: when primary needs are fully satisfiered they can think about philantropy.
To my mind, it could be also useful to communicate with organisations that work on that social areas or make researches (like ВЦИОМ) and see it from the society side not only to ask government.
Ljuba
Ljuba!
Again, thanks for your comment!
I liked the idea about Maslou piramid :) I do agree that most of companies think and act according to this logic.
However, to my mind, if we perceive CSR as a principle, Maslou logic is not the best way to follow. Principle is a basic thing that should form all actions of the company. For example, even the company is small and has to fight for customers, it's not an excuse not to care about its employees and its stakeholders! Just the opposite: if company 'feels' responsibility from the very beginning, it will be rewarded with profit afterwards.
Yet, this is probably an ideal case scenario that business should strive for.
That's what I think.
PS Ljuba, what are your future plans connected with CSR?
Post a Comment