CSR Will Still Survive the Economy

This past February in my post, CSR Will Survive the Economy, I make a case for CSR initiatives still having a bright future despite the economic downturn.  But as the recession continues and companies struggle through recovery, it makes me wonder…Just how long will the triple bottom line prevail when profit is at the front of everybody’s mind?

In Bonus Rage and its Pitfalls John Robertson discusses how new restrictions for top executives has a downside, social responsibility initiatives in particular taking a big hit.  He contends that in order for companies to operate under the triple bottom line of people, planet, profit, executives need the freedom to exercise judgment.  He states, “If companies were to be more than simply cash registers, executives had to be empowered to make choices. Directors needed to decide how the value being created should be divided up: how much to employees, how much to suppliers, how much to shareholders, how much to deserving community organizations and at what cost to the physical environments in which the company operates.”  He continues, “Unfortunately, this is precisely the discretion being stripped from the repertoire of the modern corporate executive as he is forced to make an unequivocal commitment to financial success.”

Robertson also contends that this won’t get better any time soon with governments looking to maximize the financial returns from their recent equity purchases, executives trying to repay loans as quickly as possible, and employees too scared of losing their job to demand better from their employer.

While Robertson makes a convincing argument, I believe that it’s only an excuse, a reason for leadership to free themselves of any obligation to humanity and the environment.  You see, this viewpoint stems from the idea of corporate social responsibility being solely a cost, rather than an integral, revenue building part of the business model.  Companies and leaders alike that still hold to the belief that CSR is merely writing a check will most likely cut back or quit their CSR practices altogether in the name of financial strife.

On the other hand, however, there are others who will strongly embrace the great opportunities social responsibility presents and come out stronger on the other side of this recession. Will Marré, CEO of REALeadership Alliance, states, “When times are tough it’s hard not to be hijacked by fear. Thinking about how much good we can do becomes downright unnatural when we’re genuinely afraid we won’t have what we need.  But what if we turn that fear upside down?  Imagine that the key to security, prosperity, and happiness comes from doing good.  As much good as possible.”  According to Marré, now is the time to invest in social responsibility.  In fact, he contends that saving the world is the greatest economic opportunity of our time.

I do indeed stand by my original posting…CSR will survive the economy.  We cannot allow our values to be turned on and off depending on the weather of the current situation.  The triple bottom line is a way of doing business, not a fad that has run its course.

Unnecessary Layoffs Reprehensible

Will Marré, CEO of REALeadership Alliance and author of Save the World and Still be Home for Dinner, recently wrote an interesting blog, Microsoft is Stupid, in lieu of Microsoft’s recent announcement to layoff 5000 employees.  Marré’s stand is that when a profitable company lays off employees, it is irresponsible and poor leadership.  He states, “I am of the firm belief that the foundation of Corporate Social Responsibility is that competent, committed employees should not be fired while a company is profitable.  It’s even more outrageous when Microsoft has tens of billions in cash languishing uninvested because they can’t think up new ways to grow.  This is an immense failure of leadership.”

While Marré’s view is certainly controversial, especially since it is not an uncommon practice of top leadership made famous by Jack Welch, CEO of GE, to me, it is dead on.  After all, shouldn’t a company’s top priority be to its employees?  Michelle Sterling, founder and President of building b: solutions, in Heads up HR: CSR is Knocking, states, “Research continually shows that the number one item that consumers look at to judge the CSR of a brand is how that company treats its employees.  Numero Uno.  Top of the lists.”  Marré states in Corporate Social Responsibility Needs HR,  “Doesn’t it make sense that an organization’s first social responsibility is to benefit and develop their own employees?  It seems that most American’s don’t care if businesses are recycling if they treat their own people like trash.”

Not everyone agrees, however, with this viewpoint.  In Some Firms Cut Costs Without Resorting to Layoffs by Cari Tuna it states, “Some workplace experts say layoffs are a useful part of the business cycle, allowing employers to weed out poor performers, increase efficiency and promote a high-performance culture.” Tuna continues, “Today, many companies argue that alternatives such as across-the-board salary freezes and budget cuts are more harmful, because they can drive away top performers.”

I have to disagree.  Aren’t layoffs, instead, the ultimate failure in taking care of one’s employees? Tim Sanders, author of Saving the World at Work, states, “In my view, socially responsible companies don’t have layoffs when they are still viable or making money. It is not an expense reduction strategy with an upside.”

IAC Chief Executive, Barry Diller, was quoted in Diller to profitable companies: Lay off the layoffs at Huffington Post: “The idea of a company that’s earning money, not losing money, that’s not, let’s say ‘industrially endangered,’ to have just cutbacks so they can earn another $12 million or $20 million or $40 million in a year where no one’s counting is really a horrible act when you think about it on every level. First of all, it’s certainly not necessary. It’s doing it at the worst time. It’s throwing people out to a larger, what is inevitably a larger unemployment heap for frankly no good reason.”

Employee layoffs should not be the easy way out for companies, even though they see a decline in profits.  Top leadership should be doing everything they can, trying every other option before resorting to layoffs, especially when remaining profitable.  In Some Firms Cut Costs Without Resorting to Layoffs Cari Tuna also explores what some companies are doing to avoid layoffs. Tuna states, “Some employers are freezing hiring, offering voluntary retirement packages, cutting hours, reducing salaries or delaying raises. Other cost-saving tactics include raising employee health-care contributions and slashing bonuses, employer contributions to retirement plans and budgets for training, travel and other perquisites.”  Alex Chang, founder of real-estate search engine Roost.com, has gotten creative to save of his employees jobs from moving to a smaller office space and allowing some employees to work from home and asking vendors for discounts.

The bottom line is that CSR must start with responsibility to employees. As Marré concludes in Microsoft is Stupid, “[Microsoft’s] first Corporate Social Responsibility is to hold leaders accountable for their persistent inability to use their resources to create products and services that people value.  Laying off 5000 people is reprehensible.”