Feelings are strong, comparable data scarce and sources' veracity hotly contested.
The topic is timely because as one US newspaper commented, March 2012 temperatures 'were so warm that records were not just broken, they were deep-fried.' CSR encompasses a much broader set of issues than sustainability, though that has generally attracted the most notoriety. But the larger question for corporations is how to calculate the benefits of investments in matters not always perceived to be directly linked with balance sheet and income statement measures.
That mainstream economics - and especially national accounts - are starting to track CSR-related matters is a natural reflection of their potential impact on financial results. This makes sense in a world attempting to manage the increased costs associated with rising energy prices and extreme weather. It also evinces the impact on competition for natural and human resources, as well as the growing understanding of social forces as an influence on competitive position.
The latest research suggests an ambiguous set of outcomes that will please neither side in the value debate: analysis of CSR investments does not yet demonstrate a contribution to traditional financial measures of success - but neither do they detract from them. The implication is that further work is necessary to accurately capture value. While no one expects many minds to be changed, that neither presupposition seems to be convincing is a useful point from which to build a better understanding. JL
Nancy Folbre comments in the Economix blog:
Corporate social responsibility has entered the lexicon of mainstream economics. Some thought this shouldn’t be, others that it simply couldn’t happen. Milton Friedman famously asserted that corporations’ only responsibility was to maximize profits. Many of his critics insisted that they were incapable of doing anything but that.
Reality has given theory a nudge.
A detailed article in the current Journal of Economic Literature by Markus Kitzmueller and Jay Shimshack points out that nearly 11 percent of professionally managed investment in the United States is designated as socially responsible.
More than a third of large companies have voluntarily requested external certifications for meeting social or environmental standards. Many companies routinely provide accounts of their socially responsible contributions.
Among the important questions addressed by recent economic research are whether socially responsible commitments lower profitability and, if not, how corporations distribute the costs among their stakeholders.
The fond hope that companies can “do well by doing good” sometimes extends to the assertion that they can even increase profitability. Skeptical economists tend to counter with “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
Neither view is strongly supported by the evidence. Mr. Kitzmueller, who works at the World Bank, and Professor Shimshack of Tulane find no strong positive or negative link between social responsibility and financial performance.
This seems like good news for social responsibility fans, suggesting that some good and relatively cheap lunches are to be had. But the question remains: Who is paying for them?
If profitability is unaffected, shareholders aren’t getting hurt.
One possibility is that socially responsible companies are able to attract particularly talented employees whose intrinsic motivation (the desire to do good) increases their willingness to work for lower salaries. The economist Robert Frank makes this point in his book “What Price the Moral High Ground? How to Succeed Without Selling Your Soul.”
But while some survey results suggest that good corporate citizenship elicits better work attitudes and higher organizational commitment, no one has conclusively shown that workers at socially responsible companies receive lower compensation than their counterparts elsewhere.
It seems more likely that consumers pick up a share of the tab.
Not all consumers are happy about this. Preferences for environmentally friendly and socially responsible products vary enormously. With perfect product differentiation — and perfect information — consumers could easily sort themselves into those willing and those unwilling to pay a social-responsibility premium.
In the real world, transactions are messier. Some consumers may end up paying higher prices than they would prefer (if, say, all companies producing a particular product, like sneakers, adopt a more costly standard), while others may be frustrated that they can’t buy as much social responsibility as they would like.
Interactions between businesses and consumers have strategic elements, with incentives on both sides to misrepresent willingness to pay. Marketing experts now recognize that efforts to emphasize social responsibility can backfire if consumers conclude that the efforts are dishonest, as in accusations of “greenwashing.”
Likewise, companies may worry that consumers are not willing to put their money where their mouths are. It’s easier to express moral disapproval than to pay higher prices.
Participants in this game often find it difficult to agree on definitions of social responsibility or to verify claims that it has been achieved. A recent article in The Economist summarizes evidence that that codes of conduct, compliance programs and audits do more to collect information than to solve problems.
More than simple consumer choice is involved. Politics play an important role. Communities with higher levels of civic engagement, economic bargaining power and capacity for collective action tend to fare better than others in minimizing environmental harms.
Studies show that consumer and union boycotts often have a significant effect on stock prices. The Journal of Economic Literature article cites research showing that “one-third to one-half of firms targeted by stakeholder actions publicly announce subsequent behavioral changes that are broadly consistent with activist aims.”
Consumers and citizens clearly have moral and economic clout. Much depends on how, exactly, they choose to wield it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment