Daniel O'Connor | Integral Ventures, LLC
Business for Social Responsibility published a response to The Economist survey on CSR. Without mincing words, BSR identified the following "reasons why The Economist is wrong on CSR:"
- Trapped by Ideology – The Economist seems to live in an ideal world, where markets function perfectly and governments are fully capable, responsible and transparent. In such a world, companies only have to obey the law and everything will be fine. This is not the real world, however.
- ‘Straw Man’ Arguments Make Easy Prey – The Economist introduces a “straw man” – CSR equals philanthropy – and then proceeds to argue strongly against it. Yet, this is clearly not a mainstream view of what CSR is all about.
- Arguments Rest on Patently False Choices – Submitting that social spending by companies comes at the expense of financial results ignores the fact that social and economic goals are not inherently conflicting but increasingly connected in today's global business environment.
- Confuses a So-Called ‘Anti-Capitalist’ Agenda with CSR – The magazine mistakenly or willfully conflates a small ‘anti-capitalist' minority that has sought to co-opt CSR, with the very real work done by corporations and their stakeholders who understand, promote and embrace the power of capitalist enterprise.
While one can certainly find evidence of all these charges in The Economist's survey, one can also find evidence that seems to contradict these charges. While there is some nuance in The Economist's persuasive survey, there is none in BSR's terse response.
Furthermore, BSR attributes to The Economist the argument that "good management and CSR are mutually exclusive" and then proclaims that "nothing could be further from the truth." But as I demonstrated in the previous essay, CSR: Just Good Business, The Economist actually acknowledged that good management and good CSR are essentially identical. In my opinion, they did so in order to argue that every other kind of CSR was essentially bad business. So while The Economist may have implied that good management and CSR are mutually exclusive, BSR's errant attribution contributes to further confusion.
Finally, BSR seems to mirror The Economist's alleged debating tactics, from the use of its own straw man arguments to combat The Economist's alleged straw man arguments to the ritual dismissal of Milton Friedman's "monolithic economic analysis" as if that was sufficient to critique The Economist's dismissive libertarianism.
To its credit, BSR notes that "While we take issue with the Economist's survey, we believe strongly that prevailing views about CSR should be challenged. For CSR to remain a vibrant concept that makes a difference for business and society, it is important that assumptions be questioned."
Clearly, this will not happen until first-rate magazines like The Economist engage first-rate organizations like BSR in direct dialogue.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
See Also:
