July 20, 2010 | Read Time: 2 minutes
The BP oil leak and the meltdown of the global financial system were enabled by a harmful force: corporate social responsibility.
So writes Chrystia Freeland, global editor at large for Thomson Reuters, in yesterday’s Washington Post.
Ms. Freeland argues that CSR “muddies the waters,” distracting companies from their core goal of maximizing profits and persuading government officials that businesses are doing the right thing and don’t need much regulation.
Others who write about philanthropy and corporate social responsibility are taking issue with her argument.
Matthew Bishop, an editor at the Economist and co-author of a book on philanthropy, says that there is no evidence that the corporate social responsibility programs of BP and Goldman Sachs — two companies singled out by Ms. Freeland — played a part in the oil and financial crises in which those companies have been embroiled. Yes, BP’s espousal of corporate social responsibility might have bought the firm a little time, Mr. Bishop says, “but there is no suggestion this led the firm to think it could get away with anything.”
“Rather than justifying Christia’s dismissal of CSR, the failings of Goldman Sachs and BP underscore the need for firms to take their engagement with society more seriously, and to put being on the right side of social progress at the core of their long-term profit-making strategy,” says Mr. Bishop.
Alice Korngold, an expert on boards who writes for Fast Company, agrees, saying that corporate social responsibility “isn’t the problem, it’s the solution.”
Chris Jarvis and Angela Parker, of the Canadian consulting firm Realized Worth, write that Ms. Freeland doesn’t understand corporate social responsibility. BP’s problem wasn’t that it was practicing corporate social responsibility, say Mr. Jarvis and Ms. Parker, but that the company was practicing “false marketing.”
What do you think?
— Caroline Preston
