Writing about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is becoming challenging as most corporations and organisations are familiar with the concept and know how to implement it to promote their brand as a responsible business. However, questions ought to be raised as to whether the meaning and purpose of CSR in today’s continuously changing environment is in accordance with what it was supposed to do when it was first introduced.

Howard Bowen (1953) is often cited as the “father of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)”, but the concept of CSR took hold in the U.S. in the 1970s. It was viewed as a social contract between business operations and society. It primarily focused on the ethical part of doing business and a company’s responsibility towards society. Another objective was to tackle any negative externalities caused by business operations on the environment and the community.

In 1991, the concept of CSR was represented as a pyramid by Archie B. Carroll. The foundation of this pyramid is economics, but where does it tackle any negative externalities of its business operations? So, the question here is whether this is the right pyramid in today’s climate.

Carroll’s Corporate Social Responsibility pyramid (1991) (Source: aqa.org.uk)

Transnational Corporations (TNCs) were the first organisations to implement CSR-policies to avoid interference by governments that could design laws to enforce a behaviour change in how they operate. Even today, it is not mandatory nor are there strict guidelines on how CSR should be implemented in business operations. This is a concern as it will in the first instance prioritise the interest of its shareholders, and not the environment and society.

Let’s take a familiar example a famous international coffee brand, located almost in every country in the world. For a brand to be called responsible shouldn’t it implement the same CSR policy across all its stores? Obviously, that is not the case as it will adopt policies which suit local laws and culture, and it is not necessary to be overly concerned about aspects not relevant to the local context. During COVID there was a change in policy that no reusable mugs should be used when having coffee in the establishments. Why using disposable cups knowing they create pollution, thus waste; whereas the mugs can be washed and used again so no waste is created. However, the concern that customers or staff would get COVID using mugs, even after they have been cleaned/steamed is unfounded. But maybe this was a mere excuse, as disposable cups are maybe cheaper and require less resources.

I am not directly blaming the coffee brand for such a decision as many other companies globally have taken other or similar actions, however, it highlights that CSR is voluntarily undertaken by the organisation without any legal power and can therefore be ignored if it doesn’t suit the business operations.

But CSR shouldn’t apply only to large corporations, it should be part of the philosophy of doing business across any type of organisation regardless of their size or capital power.

Extending this, is social responsibility only a “corporate” matter or is it relevant to all citizens? Should we adopt a new form of social responsibility that encompasses everyone; “Citizen Social Responsibility?”

A community consists of people, and organisations (businesses, government, charities, etc.) are a part of it, so this means we all as citizens have an impact on the society and environment, directly or indirectly. Shouldn’t we also adopt a Citizen Social Responsibility policy approach that ensures that we all work towards a more sustainable and fair society.

In the corporate world the concept of corporate citizenship already exists but its priority is to improve the quality of life and living standards while also maintaining profitability for shareholders. Does this also include the environment?

Many critics of CSR are of the opinion that CSR is very often used for brand promotion without really making a big difference. This is also called “greenwashing.”

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has mostly been thought to be about brand protection; to be seen as a good business towards the community, as well employees. It promotes projects to support communities such as building hospitals, better road infrastructures, charity donations and so on; but is it a smokescreen of the environmental problems it creates such as land-degradation, pollution, deforestation, etc.? Of course, these are good initiatives, but corporations should not be relieved from tackling their own impacts on the likes of pollution and climate change.

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published the Brundtland Report (“Our Common Future”) introducing the concept of sustainability. It highlighted that food security, energy, population, biodiversity, industry, and human settlements are intertwined, and that solutions should incorporate all of them, rather than in isolation, one from another.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals has as an objective to unify the world on 17 goals that should tackle social, environmental, and economic problems through a set of 169 targets. It also recommends strongly to adopt as many SDGs as possible locally, and not solely focus on problems elsewhere.

The UN SDG Pyramid reflects its vision using the environment as the foundation to have a sustainable economy built on it. Whereas in Carroll’s Pyramid, the economy is prioritised apparently at the cost of our environment.

The UN SDG Pyramid (Source: stockholmresilience.org)

Social responsibility, corporate or citizen, is not at its root about policies, reports, or laws but about what is right for all and encourages actions that benefit society and environment, hand-in-hand. Environmental and social development should be the foundation for sustainable economic development.

On an airplane they ask you to “Put the mask on yourself first, before you put it on someone else.” This should be the same philosophy for CSR: focus first on the impact caused by the business on the local community – including the local environment – before trying to solve other problems.

The synergy to promote a CSR fit for a sustainable future of all Macau businesses is absent unless all stakeholders accept that SDGs should be an integral part of all CSR policies, ensuring that environment and society are equally important as the economic considerations.