Can corporate social responsibility survive through recession?

In recession, people are actually less forgiving of bad behaviour, writes Philip Monaghan.

All film-lovers will recall the famous scene in Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid: our anti-heroes stand at the cliff edge with the prospect of either jumping off into the rapids below or being caught by the chasing posse to face a firing squad. The Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) hesitates, saying he is scared to leap because he cannot swim. Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) laughs out loud, pointing out that he need not worry – the jump from the cliff will kill them anyway. Both men make the jump and survive.

Many corporate leaders face a similar leap of faith when it comes to integrating sustainable development into their business strategies. Barclays, BP, Enron, Lehman Brothers and NewsCorp all have or had corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes in place, many of which have been lauded. Barclays and BP have rightly been praised in the past for their leadership roles in the Equator Principles (to enable environmental and social considerations in project financing) and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (to counter bribery and corruption) respectively. Yet the Barclays interest-rate manipulation scandal in 2012 and the BP deepwater horizon spill in 2006 show that despite these best intentions a culture of "making a quick buck" at someone else’s expense can be extremely hard to shake. This has only had disastrous consequences for shareholders and wider society, but led to the ongoing existence of both companies been called into question at one point or another.

So what is the problem? Is CSR still merely a periphery activity in companies despite the hula? Does short-term gain always trump long-term value? Or is it just a few rogue actors within a company bringing the rest down, which is impossible to 100 per cent safeguard against? Maybe. Or perhaps it is because corporate planners and risk evaluators are simply looking at the wrong thing: their resiliency strategy needs rewiring. Misguided business executives assume they can ride out the storm from any high-stake gamble, including an illegal one. Their hunch is that they will not caught because they are smarter than everyone else. That even if they do get caught the market will forgive them if they continue to deliver good investor returns. And that people have short memories. Yet this is a very narrow approach to resiliency, one that is focused on being able to resist immediate shocks and fails to understand the complex system in which a single entity operates. Survival is also about the ability to learn and transforming. During a global recession, people's tolerance of bad corporate behaviour is much lower and their memories much longer. So the political uproar and ferocity of the regulator response on both sides of the Atlantic is no surprise (and hopefully any new supervision will include an overhaul of how credit rating agencies evaluate non-financial risk too).

If CSR is to be relevant for a post-recession world from 2015 onwards, it needs to become infused with resiliency thinking. CSR advocates now stand at the cliff edge at a time of great uncertainty. They can turn back or make another great leap of faith to shape a more responsible capitalism. Not an easy choice by any means, but the right choice for shareholders and society alike.

News Corp, one of many companies with a CSR program. Photograph: Getty Images

Philip Monaghan is founder & CEO of Infrangilis (a consultancy and think-tank on resiliency strategies). He is the acclaimed author of the books Sustainability in Austerity (2010) and How Local Resilience Creates Sustainable Societies (2012).

Getty
Show Hide image

The Daily Mail’s reaction to Tom Daley’s baby is a reminder we’re not all equal yet

Columnist Richard Littlejohn seems to find it hard to cope with the idea of a gay couple having a moment of happiness.

Seeing as it’s LGBT+ history month, you would be forgiven for thinking that, just maybe, Britain could make it through 28 short days without a homophobic media controversy. But sadly, where optimism appears, the right-wing British press too often follows.

After the news that British Olympic diver Tom Daley and Oscar-winning screenwriter Dustin Lance-Black are expecting their first child via a surrogate, radio station LBC quickly found itself in hot water. The station asked Twitter users whether, in their opinion, there is anything “sinister” about the woman carrying Daley and Lance-Black’s child being absent from the majority of media coverage. While there has long been a debate about the ethics of surrogacy, there are plenty of straight couples who have also turned to this option, and many nuances depending on the context, so the timing and wording of the question seemed pointed. LBC subsequently apologised for the “badly worded debate”.

But meanwhile, the printing presses were whirring.The main course to LBC’s starter, the Death Star to its Vadar and the hot dog to its mustard was springing into action. Otherwise known as: The Daily Mail.

Seemingly unable to cope with the idea of a gay couple having a moment of happiness, the paper employed its most un-lethal weapon, Richard Littlejohn, to put things right. In a piece entitled “Please don't pretend two dads is the new normal”, the columnist condemned the pair’s social media announcement, before expressing his discomfort at women being treated as “breeding machines” (again, note the sudden interest in the surrogacy debate). Next he takes aim at the media, lambasting them for covering this news just like any other baby announcement. Littlejohn then asks a series of erratic questions in quick succession. “Is Daley or his husband the father? Was it Bill, or was it Ben? Or neither of them?” Like a GSCE candidate who failed to revise for the exam, he soldiers on: “More pertinently, never mind Who's The Daddy? Who's The Mummy?”

By this point, you can practically picture Littlejohn, sweaty and misshapen, frothing at the mouth as he pummels his keyboard. Sensing that he’s out of material but still has half a page to fill, he haphazardly directs his hostility towards a trans woman who appeared in the news earlier this week, because why bother being homophobic when you can be transphobic too? Concluding the piece on a crescendo of awfulness, he “jokes” that he’s looking forward to the pictures of Daley breastfeeding, because apparently you can’t be a parent if you don’t breastfeed.

I suppose I should thank Littlejohn for proving, yet again, that the best way to transform male right-wing columnists into strident feminists is an opportunity to remind gay or trans people that they’ll never be seen as equals. Pre-emptively defending himself against accusations of homophobia within the article, Littlejohn claims he supported civil partnerships (but notably not same-sex marriages) long before “it was fashionable” to do so. Yet in 2004, the year that civil partnerships were introduced, Guardian columnist Marina Hyde dedicated an entire column to tracking his obsession with LGBT issues. “In the past year's Sun columns, Richard has referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to 'homophobia' and six to being 'homophobic' (note his inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to "gay sex in public toilets", three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery.” She writes, concluding: “This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns.”

The reaction to Littlejohn's latest piece was quick. Several organisations pulled out of advertising in the Daily Mail, a signal that the days of men like Littlejohn may soon be over. But whether published or not, this brand of homophobia is still prevalent in Britain. It appears when people claim not to have a problem with LGBT+ people, until one of their children comes out as gay or has a gay friend. It appears every time a person starts a sentence with “I’m not being homophobic, but…” It appears when gay parents, even those who have won Olympic medals and Academy Awards, are still only seen as a marginally better option that children being left to, as Littlejohn puts it, “rot in state run institutions where they face a better-than-average chance of being abused”.

As I suspect Littlejohn knows, no one is claiming that two dads is the new normal. Two gay parents is still a relatively new image for media and the public to digest, which has enabled this “debate” to happen. When 58 per cent of gay men are too afraid to hold hands with a partner in public, the idea that gay relationships are accepted enough to be considered anywhere close the “new normal” is ridiculous.

Yet Daley and Lance-Black’s announcement has revealed that, while homophobia is still mainstream enough to make it on to major platforms in the UK, it does not go unchallenged. We might not know what the tomorrow’s “normal” will be, but relics like Littlejohn represent the very worst of the past.