July 25, 2008 by
Brian Butler | Filed under: Regarding Social Responsibility [1, 2, 4]
This summary is also available as a Word Document
Overview
The workshop was moderated by CUB graduate student and assistant professor Simon Milton and was attended by one practicing environmental management professional, a number of graduate students from environmental management programs and one member of department faculty.
Participants:
Moderator: Simon Milton: Simon.milton@uni-corvinus.hu
1) Anna Szechy Anna.szechy@uni-corvinus.hu
2) Szilvia Gartner sgartner@denso.hu
3) Laura Baritz laura@hcbc.hu
4) Prof. Janos Szlavik szlavik@eik.bme.hu
5) Csada Volgyi Vol.xaba@gmail.com
6) Reka Matolay Reka.matolay@uni-corvinus.hu
7) Agota Pignitzky Ago.pignitzky@gmail.com
The goal of the workshop was in part to define the role of CSR in relation to the Environmental Manager (and vice-versa) and to respond to the following questions raised in advance on the website www.environmentalmanager.org
-Is engaging in CSR is just a means to maintain a company’s competitive viability . . . or it is an end in itself?
- Does an inherent conflict exist between social and economic objectives or can both contribute to improved competitive advantage?
Questions which the moderator introduced for dicsussion included:
1) Is there a difference between ‘environmental management’ and the environmental pillar of CSR practice?
2) What does this entail for the EM? – How can we clarify what the roles and responsibilities of the EM are in relation to CSR? (how does the EM relate to CSR – as a passive supplier of knowledge (environmental data) or as an active supporter of CSR practice?)
3) How does this differ according to company (SME Vs Multi) / sector (high risk Vs Low risk) / country?
4) Is there any inherent conflict between the goals of the EM and the goals of CSR?
5) Where within the company does responsibility for CSR practice lie? (e.g. HR vs. Board Vs EM Vs H&S?). How can this responsibility be harmonized and integrated with and across these traditional roles and positions?
Although CSR now has a more than 20 year history, it remains a rather nebulous concept and many alternative definitions are utilized. The discussion therefore started with discussion of the meaning of CSR as contrasted with concepts and terms such as ‘corporate responsibility’, ‘good governance’ and corporate philanthropy.
Due to the number and variety of definitions of CSR, the academic and practitioner field of EM would benefit from a formal definition of CSR as recognized by those involved in the field of EM, as a basis from which to continue discussion.
Discussion continued on the topic of whether engaging in CSR is simply a means to maintain a company’s competitive viability. Participants generally agreed that companies cannot prejudice profit-making activities (this notion is enshrined in corporate charters) and CSR practices may not be prejudicial to the strategic objectives of the firm or the firm will become financially unviable. However, the use of CSR practices as a specific procedural strategic goal has occurred in many larger western companies and may well produce a knock-on effect – making uptake of some CSR practices unavoidable for some companies.
Regarding the question ‘does an inherent conflict exist between social and economic objectives or can both contribute to improved competitive advantage?’, the well-known paper by Porter (‘Green and Competitive’) is suggested as a starting point for further work. As economists know, externalities are often created by company operations (pollution, unsustainable resource extraction etc.) and social well-being is not always monetizable. Given these two points, it remains doubtful if a hierarchically structured company with limited shareholders may wholly, sustainably and equitably ever satisfy broader societal needs. Nonetheless, as some private-public partnerships (PPPs) in the UK indicate, social objectives may be met by partly or fully using private organizations.
Regarding social objectives, it was also mentioned that companies (through marketing and production of innovative goods) create (and have an interest in perpetuating) certain social needs and desires and stand in danger of conflicting with the stated aim of ‘satisfying social objectives’ when consumption patterns lead to a decline in welfare (due to drawdown of natural resources, pollution etc.).
The concept of Sustainable Consumption has started to appear in initiatives at the private and government level. A challenge for companies aiming to work towards sustainability at the business and global level is to deal with what are likely to be growing calls for a reduction in consumption of non-renewable resources and a larger service sector, etc. Exploring how CSR and Sustainable Consumption are or may be connected is a challenging topic, and further work on this area is called for.
Moderator Questions
-Is there a difference between ‘environmental management’ and the environmental pillar of CSR practice?
Workshop participants generally agreed that the ‘environmental’ pillar of CSR (as commonly described) may include such aspects such as ISO14001, cleaner production, industrial ecology, eco-efficiency, sustainability reporting, LCA, etc. These are tools and concepts familiar to the EM, at least in theory, if not in practice. This suggests that the environmental aspects of ‘good CSR practice’ are similar to those of ‘good corporate environmental management’, and the environmental pillar of CSR provides few additional tools beyond those already in the EM toolbox.
Concepts and tools that CSR may lend to the practice and theory of EM are ‘stakeholder involvement’ and notions of going ‘beyond regulatory compliance’. The EM may consider how the use of these ideas may contribute to their working life in moving towards sustainability (e.g. stakeholder-defined beyond compliance emission targets, or stakeholder-defined targets for waste recovery).
During the conference the participants were told about the new ISO26000 CSR guideline. Examination of this document with the aim of discerning relevant content for the practice of EM is advised
- What does this entail for the EM? – How can we clarify what the roles and responsibilities of the EM are in relation to CSR? (how does the EM relate to CSR – as a passive supplier of knowledge (environmental data) or as an active supporter of CSR practice?)
This question was found difficult to answer (see comment above). A question was raised concerning exactly how CSR affects the day-to-day operations of the EM. A consensus was reached concerning the answer ‘not significantly’. Workshop respondents noted that passive provision of environmental data to the CSR coordinator was often the sole contribution of the EM to the CSR process.
These findings may suggest that EM is not usually considered a significant factor in CSR strategy-making, or strategic company-level decision and goal-setting. One question is how can the EM play more of a role in influencing the (CSR) strategy of the company and encouraging a more sustainable mode of operation.
- How does this differ according to company (SME Vs Multi) / sector (high risk Vs Low risk) / country?
It is clear that the explicit use of CSR remains a minority practice, restricted to a limited number of multinational companies (if we consider the pool of larger multinationals, SMEs and non-western companies as a whole). Due to the fact that CSR practice is limited and not standardized in any way it was not possible for participants to comment on the relationship of EM to CSR in various companies at various scales in different countries, apart from one comment which is worth recording – that CSR may be a market barrier and burden to exports from the south.
The role of EM and CSR changes at different scales of company size, in different geographical areas. It is worth considering how CSR affects SMEs and compare and contrast this with the situation in larger companies.
- Is there any inherent conflict between the goals of the EM and the goals of CSR?
A point raised earlier in the symposium was mentioned – the fact that if CSR is practiced by companies as a purely utilitarian measure aimed at maintaining competitive advantage and market share, it may conflict with the ideal goal of the EM which may be more aimed at making the company into a more environmentally sustainable operation. This degree of this potential conflict very much depends on the intentions and practices of leadership figures at the company.
It is suggested that examples of companies with best-practice CSR and EM are studied to empirically investigate any linkages, practices and responsibilities between these areas.
- Where within the company does responsibility for CSR practice lie? (e.g. HR vs. Board Vs EM Vs H&S?). How can this responsibility be harmonized and integrated with and across these traditional roles and positions?
The issue of the level of responsibility for CSR practices at the organizational level was raised.
At what level should CSR strategy and practice be implemented, and which staff and organizational bodies should be included? In an ideal situation, should the EM be part of a CSR stakeholder panel within the company whose goal is to deal with CSR practice?
Further questions and comments which arose included:
- What is the role of legislation in ensuring CSR practices are meaningful and equitably utilized in the corporate sector?
- There is potential for conflict between HR, H&S, EM and other departments if responsibility for CSR practices and strategy-making are confined to one department.
- There is potential for conflict and poor implementation if CSR practices and strategy-making are mandated through top-down processes in multinational companies with no room for local input
- If the EM is expected to deal with CSR issues, this may in some cases require an enlarged skill set and be a burden to the EM. How should this be dealt with?
No Comments »
