Marc
Epstein, Adriana Buhovac and Kristi Yuthas highlight in a 2010 article how
“executives recognize the importance of social and environmental
responsibility, corporate sustainability, but they seldom implement it
successfully. The challenge lies in how to actually integrate sustainability
into operational and capital investment decision making and implement it
successfully in large, complex, for-profit organizations.”
The
global financial crisis has put the brakes on Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) in many organisations, and even many of the ‘big boys’ have struggled to
focus on effective CSR – where the success of CSR can be measured in the local
community.
Epstein
argues that, to improve the sustainability strategy implementation process,
managers should carefully identify and measure key performance drivers included
among the various inputs and processes. The drivers of the model include:
- External context (regulatory and geographical),
- Internal context (mission, corporate strategy, corporate organizational structure, organizational culture, and systems),
- Business context (industry sector, customers, and products), and
- Human and financial resources.
Before
you can ‘give back’ you have to be secure yourself – that’s regardless of
whether you are an organisation or an individual, that’s why it’s often
‘mature’ organisations and individuals who are in a real position to give back
socially. SME businesses must be sure that their CSR initiatives, however
well-meaning, add to their sustainable growth; otherwise both they and the
community they are trying to help may suffer in the medium to long-term.
Recently,
the Foundation for Applied Research (FAR) of the Institute of Management Accountants
(IMA®) sponsored a research study to examine how leading corporations integrate
economic, social, and environmental impacts into day-to-day management decision
making. The research focused on four companies:
- Nike, the world’s leading designer, marketer, and distributor of athletic products and clothing;
- Procter & Gamble (P&G), one of the world’s leading branded consumer products companies;
- The Home Depot, the world’s largest home improvement specialty retailer; and
- Nissan North America, a unit of Nissan Motor Co., a leading global auto manufacturer.
Epstein
et al highlight how “in all four companies, there are fewer conflicts for
senior and middle managers in balancing social, environmental, and financial
performance because these conflicts are resolved higher up in the organization
and are well integrated into the informal systems. Upper management has bought
in to the benefits relating to sustainability. Thus people are able to make
certain trade-offs because they know their leaders will be supportive.
Corporate responsibility is one of Nike’s nine strategic priorities. The CEO
and other company leaders support CR intensively and consider it an enhancing
element in reaching strategic goals. In fact, leadership engagement is number
one. ‘Making a sustainable decision that negatively impacts margins is not so
wrong, but they have to inform me because we can offset this somewhere else,’
one vice president explained.”
All
four of these organisations are seasoned, mature businesses where corporate social
responsibility adds to their ‘business value’ by allowing them to be seen
actively supporting the communities where they work, hence this is a win-win
for everyone involved. But don’t forget that these are profit driven
organisations and everything they do ultimately links back to their corporate
strategy and meeting their stakeholder requirements and expectations, many of
which are financially driven
Epstein
et al highlight how “companies sometimes consider social impacts more difficult
to measure than financial results because they’re often intangible, hard to
quantify, and difficult to attribute to a specific organization, and they have
a long time horizon. This difficulty often presents obstacles to producing
compelling evidence of impact and mission achievement.”
Both
common sense and years of research tell us what we already know – that
supporting local communities where you do business can do nothing but help your
businesses sustainable growth. It’s the identification of effective corporate socially
responsible projects and then the effective implantation of these projects so
that they really make a difference on the ground that distinguishes ‘good’ CSR
from the rest. Hopefully next year organisations around the globe can put a
little more strategic thought into CSR and identify the win-wins that many
businesses and communities need.
As
Epstein, Buhovac and Yuthas conclude “an organizational culture supporting
sustainability decisions can inspire and motivate employees to take
sustainability obligations seriously. In addition, in their recruitment and
development practices, companies may seek to create in their employees a
passion and commitment to sustainability. This leads to contributions that are
good for society, the environment, and the company’s bottom line.”
References:
Epstein,
M.J., Buhovac, A.R. and Yuthas, K. (2010). Implementing Sustainability: The
Role of Leadership and Organisational Culture. Strategic Finance, Vol. 91,
Issue 10, p. 41-47.
No comments:
Post a Comment