Browse
Engage
Research
So, what's in a name? There seems to be an endless battle over whether sustainability is merely a component of (corporate) social responsibility or whether social responsibility is simply one of the so-called bottom lines in sustainability's triple bottom line (TBL).
It is not really a battle since neither side will even recognize the other. Yet there are adherents defending each of the terms. Both sustainability and social responsibility are broadly defined. Neither term has a well-accepted operational definition showing how it works at the facility and process level. The definitional issue was raised in a previous blog.
Why do I bring this up? In 2010, the International Organization for Standardization will release the ISO 26000 social responsibility standard. It defines social responsibility as:
"Responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment through transparent and ethical behavior…"
There is an Australian standard for Corporate Social Responsibility (i.e., AS8303:2003) that defines social responsibility as:
"A mechanism for entities to voluntarily integrate social and environmental concerns into their operations and their interaction with their stakeholders, which are over and above the entity's legal responsibilities."
It is interesting that in both definitions the environmental responsibility is fully contained within the definition of social responsibility. Neither definition mentions the economic responsibility commonly included in sustainability's TBL.
There is a British Standard for Sustainable Development (BS 8900:2006). It defines sustainable development as
"An enduring, balanced approach to economic activity, environmental responsibility and social progress."
This is a classic TBL definition that designates social responsibility as one of the components -- not the overarching philosophy.
The current draft of ISO 26000 addresses the relationship between social responsibility and sustainable development by noting that the focus of social responsibility is on the organization, not the globe. Yet BS8900:2006 is clearly focused on the organization.
In their book, "Total Responsibility Management: The Manual," Sandra Waddock and Charles Bodwell characterize TRM as a systemic framework for managing responsibility for all of the organization's stakeholder- and natural environment-related activities. They liken the journey to total responsibility as being similar to the quest for total quality management. The book describes the TRM framework as instituting a values-driven vision and integrating this vision into the organization's strategies, its employee and stakeholder relationships and practices, and the numerous management systems that support the organization's strategies.
While you might not like the TRM term, the word "responsibility" certainly does have a good ring to it. Responsibility could become the foundation for the organization's Code of Conduct.The three responsibilities in the TBL could become the outcomes of the practice of responsibility.
In a previous blogs, I outlined the five basics for sustainability at the organizational level:
1) Business continuity and risk management
2) Responsibility
3) Conformance and Compliance
4) Performance
5) Continual Improvement
All my blogs have acknowledged sustainability as the overarching concept at the organizational level -- not social responsibility. Maybe I need to make a change even though I do not buy into the Draft ISO 26000 explanation that sustainability is only for the globe!
So what do you think? It is time to stand up and be heard on this topic! What do you feel is the overarching concept -- sustainability or social responsibility? Perhaps you would like to propose a new name for this concept as a gesture of compromise for the people that just cannot vote for the "competing" term.
You can send your vote to me at rpojasek@capaccio.com if you do not wish to respond to this blog by commenting below. I will report on the tally in a future blog.
Robert B. Pojasek, Ph.D., is the sustainability practice leader at Capaccio Environmental Engineering and an internationally recognized expert on the topic of business sustainability and process improvement.
Images CC licensed by Flickr users jemsweb and futurestreet.
Try working in two languages: now, that's complicated!
If you think the difference between CSR and sustainability is a tough topic to debate, you should try working in both English and French! In French, CSR translates into Responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise (which means, literally, the Organization's Social Responsibility). But there is also the term Responsabilité sociétale de l'entreprise (note the subtle difference) which means the organization's corporate responsibility. Triple Bottom Line? Doesn't even translate properly! I'm a sustainability communication consultant, and I'm all about creating a common understanding of a company's vision. Therefore, I explain all definitions to my clients and let them choose which one best reflects their culture - then they have to stick with it.
Fine article by the way.
CSR is old. Sustainability is new.
I was a CSR Recruiter and now I am a Sustainability Recruiter. I made the decision to rebrand as I feel that CSR is the old widely-accepted term and Sustainability is the new widely-accepted term. At the same time, and I admit these are generalizations, I find sustainability programs more environmentally heavy and CSR more human rights/labor leaning.
Ellen Weinreb
http://www.ellenweinreb.com
http://www.twitter.com/sustainablejobs
false dichotomy
I don't see why either "sustainability" or "social responsibility" would be the overarching concept. Sometimes the socially responsible thing to do isn't sustainable, and sometimes the sustainable thing to do isn't socially responsible. The question to ask is, what is "it" that we're talking about, over all? We're talking about companies trying to do the right thing, right? Isn't there already a word for that? That word is "ethics."
If we're interested in companies doing the right thing, sometimes that just won't be a matter of either sustainability or social responsibility (unless you broaden those terms so much that they lose all meaning and just become awkward synonyms for "ethics.")
I've been blogging about these issues a lot. For example:
http://www.businessethics.ca/blog/2009/08/csr-is-not-c-s-r.html
Chris MacDonald,
The Business Ethics Blog
Sustainable question
Great post Robert as this is something that frequently comes up in conversation with our clients, as they have been familiar with SRI investing and now hear ESG and Sustainable investing terms.
I tend to favor the Sustainable view as it is more encompassing and also moves us into a new era, quite separate from what many have come to believe is captured under SRI. As a member of UNEP FI you may want to take a look at their definitions around this subject too. http://www.unepfi.org/index.html
Thanks again for the constructive thinking around this topic as it becomes an area that will become more and more important for the public to understand.
Best,
David McMillan
www.caledoniawealth.com
What's in a name?
Generally, I tend to think of "sustainability" as the broader term, used to define the approach of thinking toward the long term -- and "CSR" as a subset of that, used to definie the activities that support the commitment to sustainability.
Also, I believe vehemently that you cannot remove the economic aspect from sustainability. Positive economic performance -- whether by companies, individuals, governments or non-profit -- is what enables action and investment for societal and environmental good. Improvements (usually) don't happen for free!
"Its only words"
Words are important because they tend to shape how we think, though it does seem futile at times to quibble over them.
From what I've seen so far, the generally accepted view seems to be that 'sustainability' is the broader term, encompassing multiple dimensions such as social, cultural (according to some, a separate dimension by itself), environmental and economic, and capturing the essence of all these components at a more abstract level. Hopefully this view sticks, and regardless of which tributary of the river of sustainability people originally came from, they learn to embrace the holistic meaning of sustainability rather than be chauvinistic to their prime cause, regardless of whether it was Human Rights or Climate Change.
So that's my vote: I am in agreement with you!