Tag: corporate social responsibility

Posted on

Creating Integrated Value (CIV)

Creating Integrated Value: Beyond CSR and CSV to CIV

Paper by Wayne Visser & Chad Kymal

Abstract

Creating Integrated Value, or CIV, is an important evolution of the corporate responsibility and sustainability movement. It combines many of the ideas and practices already in circulation – like corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustainability and creating shared value (CSV) – but signals some important shifts, especially by focusing on integration and value creation. More than a new concept, CIV is a methodology for turning the proliferation of societal aspirations and stakeholder expectations – including numerous global guidelines, codes and standards covering the social, ethical and environmental responsibilities of business – into a credible corporate response, without undermining the viability of the business. Practically, CIV helps a company to integrate its response to stakeholder expectations (using materiality analysis) through its management systems (using best governance practices) and value chain linkages (using life cycle thinking). This integration is applied across critical processes in the business, such as governance and strategic planning, product/service development and delivery, and supply and customer chain management. Ultimately, CIV aims to be a tool for innovation and transformation, which will be essential if business is to become part of the solution to our global challenges, rather than part of the problem.

 

Creating Integrated Value (CIV) is a concept and practice that has emerged from a long tradition of thinking on the role of business in society. It has its roots in what many today call corporate (social) responsibility or CSR, corporate citizenship, business ethics and corporate sustainability. These ideas also have a long history, but can be seen to have evolved primarily along two strands – let’s call them streams of consciousness: the responsibility stream and the sustainability stream.

Two Streams Flowing into One

The responsibility stream had its origins in the mid-to-late 1800s, with industrialists like John D. Rockefeller and Dale Carnegie setting a precedent for community philanthropy, while others like John Cadbury and John H. Patterson seeded the employee welfare movement. Fast forward a hundred years or so, and we see the first social responsibility codes start to emerge, such as the Sullivan Principles in 1977, and the subsequent steady march of standardization, giving us SA 8000 (1997), ISO 26000 (2010) and many others.

The sustainability stream also started early, with air pollution regulation in the UK and land conservation in the USA in the 1870s. Fast forward by a century and we get the first Earth Day, Greenpeace and the UN Stockholm Conference on Environment and Development. By the 1980s and 1990s, we have the Brundtland definition of ‘sustainable development’ (1987), the Valdez Principles (1989, later called the CERES Principles) and the Rio Earth Summit (1992), tracking through to standards like ISO 14001 (1996).

Weaving Together a Plait

As these two movements of responsibility and sustainability gathered momentum, they naturally began to see their interconnectedness. Labour rights connected with human rights, quality connected with health and safety, community connected with supply chain, environment connected with productivity, and so on. The coining of the ‘triple bottom line’ of economic, social and environmental performance by John Elkington in 1994, and the introduction of the 10 principles of the UN Global Compact in 1999 reflected this trend.

We also saw integration start to happen at a more practical level. The ISO 9001 quality standard became the design template for ISO 14001 on environmental management and OHSAS 18001 on occupational health and safety. The Global Reporting Initiative and the Dow Jones Sustainability Index adopted the triple bottom line lens. Fair Trade certification incorporated economic, social and environmental concerns, and even social responsibility evolved into a more holistic concept, now encapsulated in the 7 core subjects[1] of ISO 26000.

Thinking Outside the Box

At every stage in this process, there have been those who have challenged our understanding of the scope and ambition of corporate responsibility and sustainability. Ed Freeman introduced us to stakeholder theory in 1984, John Elkington to the ‘triple bottom line’ in 1994, Rosabeth Moss Kanter to ‘social innovation’ in 1999, Jed Emerson to ‘blended value’ in 2000, C.K. Prahalad and Stuart Hart to ‘bottom of the pyramid’ (BOP) inclusive markets in 2004, and Michael Porter and Mark Kramer to ‘creating shared value’ (CSV) in 2011.

Typically, these new conceptions build on what went before, but call for greater integration and an expansion of the potential of business to make positive impacts. For example, Hart’s ‘sustainable value’ framework (2011) incorporates pollution prevention, product stewardship, base of the pyramid (BOP) and clean tech. Emerson’s ‘blended value’, much like Elkington’s ‘triple bottom line’ looks for an overlap between profit and social and environmental targets, while Porter and Kramer’s CSV focuses on synergies between economic and social goals.

Figure 1 – Sustainable Value

susval

Source: Hart, Stuart L. (2011). Sustainable Value. Retrieved from http://www.stuartlhart.com/sustainablevalue.html

The ‘How To’ of Integration

Creating Integrated Value (CIV) takes inspiration from all of the thought pioneers that have gone before and tries to take the next step. CIV is not so much a new idea – as the longstanding trend towards integration and the ubiquitous call for embedding of standards testifies – but rather an attempt to work out the ‘how to’ of integration. When companies are faced with a proliferation of standards (Standards Map alone profiles over 150 sustainability standards) and the multiplication of stakeholder expectations, how can they sensibly respond?

We have analysed some of the most important global guidelines, codes and standards covering the social, ethical and environmental responsibilities of business – such as the UN Global Compact, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, ISO 26000, GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (G4), IIRC Integrated Reporting Guidelines, SA 8000, UN Business & Human Rights Framework and Dow Jones Sustainability Index.

What we see are large areas of overlap in these guidelines, codes and standards across what we might call the S2QE3LCH2 issues, namely:

  • S2: Safety & Social issues
  • Q: Quality issues
  • E3: Environmental, Economic and Ethical issues
  • L: Labor issues
  • C: Carbon or Climate issues
  • H2: Health and Human rights issues

Our experience of working with business shows that most companies respond piecemeal to this diversity and complexity of S2QE3LCH2 issues (let’s call them SQELCH for short). A few large corporations use a management systems approach to embed the requirements of whatever codes and standards they have signed up to. Even, so they tend to do this in silos – one set of people and systems for quality, another for health and safety, another for environment, and still others for employees, supply chain management and community issues.

Knocking Down the Silos

CIV, therefore, is about knocking down the silos and finding ways to integrate across the business. In short, CIV helps a company to integrate its response to stakeholder expectations (using materiality analysis) through its management systems (using best governance practices) and value chain linkages (using life cycle thinking[2]). This integration is applied across critical processes in the business, such as governance and strategic planning, product/service development and delivery, and supply and customer chain management.

And what about value? Most crucially, CIV builds in an innovation step, so that redesigning products and processes to deliver solutions to the biggest social and environmental challenges we face can create new value. CIV also brings multiple business benefits, from reducing risks, costs, liabilities and audit fatigue to improving reputation, revenues, employee motivation, customer satisfaction and stakeholder relations.

Pursuing Transformational Goals

Our experience with implementing and integrating existing standards like ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 convinces us that, in order for CIV to work, leaders need to step up and create transformational goals. Without ambition ‘baked in’ to CIV adoption, the resulting incremental improvements will be no match for the scale and urgency of the global social and environmental crises we face, such as climate change and growing inequality.

One of the most exciting transformational agendas right now is the Net Zero/Net Positive movement[3], which extends the ‘zero’ mind-set of total quality management to other economic, social and environmental performance areas. For example, we see companies targeting zero waste, water and carbon; zero defects, accidents and missed customer commitments; and zero corruption, labour infringements and human rights violations. These kinds of zero stretch goals define what it means to be world class today.

Stepping Up To Change

In practice, CIV implementation is a 6-step process, which we can be described as: 1) Listen Up! (stakeholder materiality), 2) Look Out! (integrated risk), 3) Dig Down! (critical processes), 4) Aim High! (innovation & value); 5) Line Up! (systems alignment); and Think Again! (audit & review). Each step is captured in Figure 2 and briefly explained below. Of course, the process must also remain flexible enough to be adapted to each company context and to different industry sectors.

Figure 2 – Creating Integrated Value

civ

Source: Wayne Visser and Chad Kymal (2014)

Step 1: Listen Up! (Stakeholder Materiality)

The first step of the CIV process is Stakeholder Materiality Analysis, which systematically identifies and prioritises all stakeholders – including customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers, regulators, communities and others – before mapping their needs and expectations and analysing their materiality to the business. This includes aligning with the strategic objectives of the organization and then driving through to result measurables, key processes and process measurables.

The stakeholder materiality analysis is the first level of integration and should be conducted simultaneously for quality, cost, products, environment, health and safety and social responsibility. The analysis helps to shape a comprehensive set of goals and objectives, as well as the overall scorecard of the organization. When conducted holistically as a part of the organization’s annual setting of goals, objectives and budgets, it seamlessly integrates into how the business operates. A similar approach was developed and fine-tuned by Omnex for Ford Motor Company in a process called the Quality Operating System.

Step 2: Look Out! (Integrated Risk)

In parallel with the Stakeholder Materiality Analysis, the risks to the business are analysed through an Integrated Risk Assessment. This means the identification and quantification of quality, cost, product, environment, health and safety and social responsibility risks, in terms of their potential affect on the company’s strategic, production, administrative and value chain processes. The risk measures developed need to be valid for all the different types of risks and different entities of the business, and mitigation measures identified.

The first two steps of Stakeholder Analysis and Risk Assessment are requirements of the new ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 45001 (formerly OHSAS 18001) standards slated to come out in the next few years. For example, in the new ISO 9001 that is planned for release in 2015, it is called ‘Understanding the Needs and Expectations of Interested Parties’ and ‘Actions to Address Risks and Opportunities’. The evolution of the ISO standards is indicative of a shift in global mind-set (since ISO represents over a 100 different countries) to prioritising stakeholder engagement and risk management.

Step 3: Dig Deep! (Critical Processes)

In step 3, the Stakeholder Materiality Analysis and Integrated Risk Assessment are used to identify critical business processes, using the Process Map of the organization. It is likely that the most critical processes – in terms of their impact on SQELCH issues – will include Governance & Strategic Planning, Product or Service Development, Product or Service Delivery, Supply Chain Management, and Customer Chain Management. There may also be others, depending on the particular business or industry sector. This Critical Processes list should also include the most relevant sub-processes.

Step 4: Aim High! (Innovation & Value)

Step 4 entails the Innovation and Value Identification element. Using the Net Zero/Net Positive strategic goals, or others like Stuart Hart’s sustainable value framework, each of the critical processes is analysed for opportunities to innovate. Opportunity analysis is followed by idea generation and screening and the creation of a Breakthrough List. This is the chance for problem solving teams, Six Sigma teams, Lean teams, and Design for Six Sigma teams and others to use improvement tools to take the company towards its chosen transformational goals. The improvement projects will continue for a few months until they are implemented and put into daily practice.

Step 5: Line Up! (Systems Alignment)

In Step 5, the requirements of the various SQELCH standards most relevant for the organization, together with the transformational strategic goals, are integrated into the management system of the organization, including the business processes, work instructions and forms/checklists. Process owners working with cross-functional teams ensure that the organizational processes are capable of meeting the requirements defined by the various standards and strategic goals. This is followed by training to ensure that the new and updated processes are understood, implemented and being followed.

Step 6: Think Again! (Audit & Review)

Integration has one final step, Internal Audit and Management Review, which creates the feedback and continuous improvement loop that is essential for any successful management system. This means integrating the value creation process into the governance systems of organization, including Strategic Planning and Budgeting, Management or Business Review, Internal Audits, and Corrective Actions. This is what will ensure that implementation is happening and that the company stays on track to achieve its transformational goals.

Words Count, Actions Matter

To conclude, we believe Creating Integrated Value, or CIV, is an important evolution of the corporate responsibility and sustainability movement. It combines many of the ideas and practices already in circulation, but signals some important shifts, especially by using the language of integration and value creation. These are concepts that business understands and can even get excited about (whereas CSR and sustainability tend to be put into peripheral boxes, both in people’s heads and in companies themselves).

More critical than the new label or the new language is that CIV is most concerned with implementation. It is a methodology for turning the proliferation of societal aspirations and stakeholder expectations into a credible corporate response, without undermining the viability of the business. On the contrary, CIV aims to be a tool for innovation and transformation, which will be essential if business is to become part of the solution to our global challenges, rather than part of the problem.

Article reference

Visser, W. and Kymal, C. (2014) Creating Integrated Value: Beyond CSR and CIV to CIV, Kaleidoscope Futures Paper Series, No. 3.

Endnotes

[1] Organizational governance, human rights, labour practices, environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues, and community involvement and development

[2] It is interesting to note that the revised ISO 14001 being planned for release in 2016 includes a life cycle perspective for all aspects of operations including product design and delivery.

[3] This is captured eloquently in John Elkington’s book, Zeronauts (2012)

Download

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”download” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/paper_civ_wvisser.pdf”]Pdf[/button] Creating Integrated Value (CIV) (paper)

Related pages

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”info” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.omnex.com/”]Page[/button] Omnex (website)

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”info” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.kaleidoscopefutures.com”]Page[/button] Kaleidoscope Futures (website)

Cite this article

Visser, W. and Kymal, C. (2014) Creating Integrated Value: Beyond CSR and CIV to CIV, Kaleidoscope Futures Paper Series, No. 3.

Share this page

Share
Posted on

Eurocrats take on CSR

Eurocrats take on CSR:

A case of ‘too little, too late’?

A blog by Wayne Visser

The European Commission’s softly-softly approach lacks impact.

CSR dips its toes in policy waters

Continuing on the theme of CSR policy and regulation, introduced in my reflections on Nigeria and India, I want to shine a spotlight on Europe’s policies on CSR, which have been evolving for more than a decade now.

In 2001 the European Commission (EC) issued a Green Paper on CSR, which ‘provided all interested parties with a platform for further discussion with the goal of policy generation in the CSR area in Europe’. After a year of consultation, the White Paper –entitled ‘CSR: A business contribution to sustainable development’ – was released, and represented the official policy intention of the EC in the field of CSR. Both papers were based on a broad consensus and had been debated through a multi-stakeholder process that included companies, business associations, governments, NGOs and trade unions.

After the White Paper, all seemed to go quiet on the European CSR policy front. Meanwhile, however, there was significant progress on waste management and climate change policy. In terms of waste, the 2002 WEEE Directives made a great leap forward on the restriction of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment and the introduction of take-back schemes for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Significant progress was also made on climate change, with a 2003 Directive laying the foundation for the EU Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme, which commenced operation in January 2005 as the largest multi-country, multi-sector carbon trading scheme in the world.

The EC re-entered the fray in March 2006 by establishing the European Alliance on CSR. This is an open alliance of European enterprises, launched to further promote and encourage CSR. The alliance is a political umbrella for CSR initiatives by large companies, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and their stakeholders. In 2006 a research report was published by CSR Europe, the ‘European Cartography on CSR Innovations, Gaps and Future Trends’, which was based on an analysis of 545 CSR-related business solutions and 140 networking activities in 19 EU countries.

Smart, sustainable and inclusive

Things seemed to go quiet again and then, in May 2010, I was invited to make a presentation on CSR in Brussels to the EU High Level Group (HLG), comprising 27 Member State representatives. The topic of my presentation was ‘CSR and the global financial crisis’, and it gave me a fantastic opportunity to talk with some of the people helping to shape the EU agenda. There were a number of trends that I found interesting.

The first was that, whereas formerly CSR was discussed purely as a voluntary activity by business (this was especially clear in the EU’s policy statement on CSR in 2006), there was now increasing discussion and even demand for what Susan Bird, CSR co-ordinator in the Directorate-General for Employment of the European Commission and part of the EU HLG on CSR, called ‘a more active role’, which may involve ‘conditions’ being introduced in the future, although this was all still up for debate.

A second insight was how the competitiveness agenda has changed. The first ten-year economic strategy of the European Union – the Lisbon Agenda, which ended in 2010 – was all about competitiveness and paid very little attention to CSR issues. However, the 2008 European Competitiveness Report dedicated an entire chapter to CSR and countries such as Denmark were claiming that responsible, green growth was central to its international reputation and hence its competitiveness. This changing emphasis is also reflected in the new Lisbon Strategy for 2020, which has as its central goal ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’.

EU strategy on CSR a damp squib

After my visit to Brussels, I concluded that the sleeping giant of CSR policy in Europe was awakening and that we should ‘watch this space’. As it turned out, we did not have to wait very long. In October 2011, ‘A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility’ was launched. The document itself is only 15 pages long (which is a good thing!) and I recommend that everyone reads it. I review the strategy in some detail in The Quest for Sustainable Business. Here, however, let me briefly make six points about the 17 actions that Europe intends to implement.

  1. There is a commitment to create multi-stakeholder CSR platforms for industries. Applying CSR at a sector level makes a lot of sense and a stakeholder engagement approach is always welcome. The concern is that this duplicates many similar initiatives that have already been undertaken by the likes of GRI, WBCSD and industry associations.
  2. The launch of a European CSR award scheme may give CSR some gravitas and greater PR mileage. But the world is already awash with CSR award schemes, and when I look at the sorts of companies that win these awards, I find they tend to be the ‘usual suspects’ who are doing little more than strategic CSR, when what we really need is more transformative approaches.
  3. The problem of greenwash is mentioned, although no specific commitment is made. Regulation on this would be a welcome addition and follows existing best practice in Australia, Canada, Norway and the United Kingdom. There is also an action to develop a code of good practice for self- and co-regulation exercises, which could be interesting, although a lot of this work has already been done by AccountAbility and its suite of AA1000 standards.
  4. The weakest and most disappointing action is on ‘better integration of social and environmental considerations into public procurement’, which has the caveat ‘without introducing additional administrative burdens for contracting authorities or enterprises, and without undermining the principle of awarding contracts to the most economically advantageous tender.’ By including that last phrase, the message is clear: the lowest price will continue to win the day.

Deflecting and devolving responsibility

  1. The only action with any teeth is requiring large companies to commit to the UN Global Compact, or the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, or the ISO 26000 Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility by 2014. But giving companies the choice between these very different principles and guidelines is laughable. It suggests an equivalence between the minimal efforts required to sign up to the Global Compact’s ten principles and the 100 pages or so of detailed guidance across seven core areas in ISO 26000.
  2. There is an attempt to extend the EU policy on CSR down to a national level, requiring member states to develop their own plans. It will keep a few bureaucrats busy but I won’t be holding my breath. I really don’t believe we need more policy or legislation on CSR. What we need is to eliminate the contradictory policies (such as fossil fuel subsidies) and focus on more effective regulation of issues, including labour rights, biodiversity loss and transparency.

Europe has shown policy leadership on many issues, from labour rights and animal rights to environmental management and climate change. However, I can’t help but wonder if this new wave of CSR policy development is doing more to confuse and distract than advance the agenda. Time will tell.

Download

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”download” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/blog_csrwire11_wvisser.pdf”]Pdf[/button] Eurocrats take on CSR: A case of ‘too little, too late’? (blog)

Related websites

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/books/the-quest-for-sustainable-business”]Link[/button] The Quest for Sustainable Business (book)

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.csrinternational.org”]Link[/button] CSR International (website)

Cite this blog

Visser, W. (2013) Eurocrats take on CSR: A case of ‘too little, too late’? Wayne Visser Blog Briefing, 28 August 2013.

Share this page

Share
Posted on

CSR 2.0: Part 8 (Video)

Extract from a presentation by Dr Wayne Visser at the Korea Social Responsibility Institute (KOSRI) 2012 conference in Seoul.

CSR 2.0: The Future of CSR — Part 8 (Implementing CSR 2.0)

Share

Share
Posted on

A giant leap backwards on CSR

A giant leap backwards on CSR:

India’s great missed opportunity

How India’s new mandatory CSR legislation and ‘clean green’ policies are taking companies in the wrong direction 

Blog by Wayne Visser

Part of the Searching for Sustainable Business series for CSRwire

Misguiding the arm of the law

In my last blog on sustainable business in Nigeria, I ended with the call for better policy on corporate social responsibility (CSR) – and a caution against mandating CSR directly, as Nigeria has proposed. This is unfortunately a lesson that India has failed to heed. In the past week, major reforms to the country’s Companies Act of 1956 were approved. Many of the changes are a laudable attempt to bring India’s business sector up to date with international trends in corporate governance, transparency and anti-corruption.

Sad to say, however, through this legislation, India is taking giant leap backwards on CSR. The new Companies Bill requires companies with profits over 50 million Rupees (USD 816,000) in the past three years to spend at least 2% of their profits on CSR. At a time when most of the world has moved beyond defensive and philanthropic modes of CSR, towards promotional, strategic and transformative approaches, India’s policy virtually guarantees that its companies will remain stuck in an out-dated charitable mind set.

The Indian legislation allows companies the freedom to choose the issues that their CSR efforts will tackle, which at least in theory allows some scope for strategic alignment of social and environmental issues with business activities. The policy also suggests that failure to spend the required percentage on CSR – or to adequately explain the reasons why – can result in penalties. However, the problem in India as in many developing countries is that the capacity to monitor and enforce is severely challenged by weak, failing or corrupt governments.

India – along with Nigeria and Malaysia, who are also pursuing the mandatory CSR line – should learn from the United Kingdom’s mistakes. Britain created something similar – a Minister for CSR – in 2003, and eventually abandoned it in 2010 as a largely ineffectual strategy. The reason it failed in the UK, and will most likely fail in India, is the same reason that CSR departments often fail in companies: lack of  integration into the core functions of the organisation, and lack of political or economic clout.

In my view, governments should focus on effective regulation of the issues that sustainable business is trying to address (biodiversity loss, labour conditions, climate change, transparency, etc.) rather than regulating sustainable business activities per se. India could have learned valuable lessons from South Africa’s corporate governance reforms, which integrate sustainability, or from the UK and USA’s legal reforms on social enterprise, or from Canada and Spain’s community development companies. Instead, by regulating CSR directly, they are more likely to create bureaucracy, stifle innovation and invite corruption.

Strengthening inclusive business

There are some more other aspects of the new Companies Bill, which could inadvertently have a bigger positive impact on socially responsible business than its mandatory ‘CSR tax’. For instance, the ability to file class action suits has been bolstered, which could allow stakeholders to take legal action against irresponsible companies. The bill also requires that companies disclose the difference in salaries between directors and employee, thus addressing one of the most neglected issues in CSR and sustainability, namely equitable income distribution.

This equity clause comes closer to the transformative agenda that is so urgently required in CSR, not only in India, but around the world. It builds on the promising trend of inclusive business that has been building in India over the past decade. Long before Michael Porter and Mark Kramer’s idea of ‘creating shared value’ (CSV) was introduced, India became a seedbed of innovation for ‘bottom of the pyramid’ (BOP) strategies, following work by CK Prahalad, Stuart Hart and others.

One of the BOP cases I investigated in some detail when I did my CSR lecture tour of India in 2010 is A Little World, a rural microbanking enterprise. Anurag Gupta, the Indian social entrepreneur who founded the company, has used mobile phone and biometric scanner technologies to make banking accessible and affordable to poor households. As a result, a ‘mini-branch’ costs only USD80 to run per month, and millions of illiterate, undocumented villagers can get low-value bank accounts for the first time in their lives. The case study is written up in detail in my book, The Age of Responsibility, and remains a great example of inclusive business.

Green does not always mean good

There are also many inspiring examples in India of how clean technologies like renewable energy and water purification are bringing vital utilities to poor households. However, research by fellow Cambridge academic, Emma Mawdsley, suggests that some of these success stories mask ongoing inequalities of development in Indian society. She presents extensive evidence of how, for example, Delhi’s ‘clean, green’ campaign has mainly benefited the middle and upper classes, while the poor have suffered.

This pattern of social injustice is reflected in the way Delhi is tackling its air pollution problems, with policies that impact badly on the poor. Small polluting industries were relocated with little or no compensation for owners or workers. Older vehicles that do not use Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) sold to other city transport fleets, thus displacing rather than reducing pollution. Even the focus on air pollution represents a middle-class priority, rather than the most pressing need of the poor—clean, available water.

Looking at the issue of water, Mawdsley is similarly critical. The poor are often criminalised for water theft (estimates indicate that as much as 50% of Delhi’s water is unaccounted for in official meter readings
and thus ‘wasted’), while the authorities turn a blind eye to middle- and upper-class illegality. This common practice involves the falsification of meter readings and technologies that can enhance water amounts extracted from already legal connections or from illegal/unregistered ground water sources (through tub and bore wells).

Mawdsley concludes that ‘the pursuit of profitable environmental policies, technologies and change is
desirable if we are to move towards greater sustainability, but the political and social nature of their impacts must be recognised. “Green” does not automatically mean “good”. There will always be winners and losers, but there is a real danger in India at least that the drive towards greater sustainability will have some regressive social outcomes.’

From my own experiences and research, I believe India is certainly a space to watch on sustainable business, and its progress is far from being a foregone conclusion. Whereas there is a sense of order and control in China’s great transition, India is far more chaotic and unmanaged (or unmanageable?). It is almost as if there is a grand experiment in sustainable business – democratic, messy, ad-hoc Indian style, versus controlled, managed, sanctioned Chinese style. Which will prevail is a question for future historians. I think it’s too soon to place bets on either. If we’re lucky, both will succeed in their own way.

Download

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”download” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/blog_csrwire9_wvisser.pdf”]Pdf[/button] A giant leap backwards on CSR: India’s great missed opportunity  (blog)

Related websites

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/books/the-quest-for-sustainable-business”]Link[/button] The Quest for Sustainable Business (book)

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.csrinternational.org”]Link[/button] CSR International (website)

Cite this blog

Visser, W. (2013) A giant leap backwards on CSR: India’s great missed opportunity, Wayne Visser Blog Briefing, 14 August 2013.

Share this page

Share
Posted on

CSR 2.0: Part 6 (Video)

Extract from a presentation by Dr Wayne Visser at the Korea Social Responsibility Institute (KOSRI) 2012 conference in Seoul.

CSR 2.0: The Future of CSR — Part 6 (Principles of CSR 2.0: Creativity & Scalability)

Continue watching: CSR 2.0: The Future of CSR — Part 7 (Principles of CSR 2.0: Responsiveness & Glocality)

Share

Share
Share
Share