I am mulling over recent readings, including those which were the basis of my two latest posts (Long live CSR and Mindset 3.0). A theme that is emerging is a debate, of sorts, between those who are beginning to see clarity around new concepts (Mindset 3.0) and those who are feeling the discomfort of a concept (CSR) losing its meaning. A recent article from the Journal of Business Ethics begins with “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a tortured concept within the academic literature.” Indeed.

What’s going on?

I suspect the common ground in this debate is the recognition that CSR is an aggregate concept that covers too broad a range of practices, thinking and new business models. The aggregation obscures the importance of looking at context — different industries, company sizes, global locations, structures, organizational maturity, etc. A GlaxoSmithKline practices social responsiblity in a fundamentally different manner than a Seventh Generation. That’s a blinding glimpse of the obvious — but not under the current, aggregate view of CSR.

There is clearly a line of thinking that now suggests we need to disaggregate CSR. And there will undoubtedly be debate about just how to go about that. But somehow I think the SustainAbility insights from the Growing Opportunity report gets at a more interesting tactic: Characterizing the common elements of a new mindset that drives new business models. As I read the Mindset 3.0 characteristics, I can see a common framework that helps explain the thinking that drives managers to change the game. That thinking will result in a variety of different outcomes — depending on the business context in which the manager operates — but the core mental model driving the change will likely have common characteristics across many contexts.

Business Strategy Review, the research quarterly of the London Business School, includes an article in the Spring 2007 edition entitled “Corporate Social Responsibility – At a Crossroads?” In the piece, co-authors N. Craig Smith and Halina Ward muse on the current state and ultimate future of CSR. This is obviously quite popular sport (of which I am an active participant), but the article is instructive because it provides insight from a U.K point of view, which bears similarities to the U.S. but also reveals several important distinctions. U.K. businesses also have arguably a more developed expertise in CSR and its predecessors; the article therefore provides a glimpse into what may be a more mature (experienced) dialog.
The authors interviewed 50 business and thought leaders on the state of CSR and its future prospects. Some highlights:

• Interviewees generally believed that CSR in the U.K. was “too often a problematic concept, not one that offers an inspirational agenda for change.”
• In part this has to do with the competing definitions issue (what is CSR?). The authors suggest that definitions split into two major groups. The first is a conceptual level definition that provides useful discussion of business and society relationship. The second group is operational, where CSR becomes splintered into distinct sub-agendas (human rights, environment, business and corruption, etc.).
• Interviews revealed several “crossroads” themes. Among them were debates between advocating market-driven business actions vs. the need for more legally binding accountability; philanthropy vs. “intrinsic” business responsibility; pure business case for CSR vs. a combination business and moral case; and shareholder capitalism vs. new models that involve greater stakeholder considerations.
• The role of policy makers in establishing the proper environment for socially-responsible behavior to evolve was also noted as a theme with important but knotty implications.

In the end, the authors conclude:

Fundamentally, [CSR's] future turns on the interaction of two factors. First, what business believes it “ought” to do, which is set by both the profitability and the moral acceptability of certain practices. And second, by what government says business “must” do.

Finally, I found one additional paragraph that struck me as very interesting. In most reviews of CSR, I see greater focus on the influence of market forces (consumer, competitor, industry) or regulatory/legal forces (government regulation, lawsuits, etc.). Rarely if ever do I see something that so clearly addresses the potential of organic change as this:

Managers are not automatons, passively responding to market signals. They can develop strategies that change the rules of the game, for example, stimulating consumer demand so that social and environmental considerations are a significant factor in consumer choice. Similarly, firms with demonstrable CSR could target investors that care about these issues (e.g., in private equity).