Regester Larkin’s Andrew Griffin: confusing CSR sceptics

‘My advice to companies is to focus on performance, build a culture of corporate citizenship and engage with the audiences that really matter…’
– Andrew Griffin, Regester Larkin

Andrew Griffin, of Regester Larkin, concludes his piece arguing that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) isn’t doing anything for corporate reputation with a statement that places him within a hair’s breadth of Business in the Community’s Julia Cleverdon. This is odd, because he’s been asked to argue against her.

It’s also terribly disappointing as the counter arguments of mavericks often provide the most food for thought. But Andrew Griffin’s anti-CSR polemic is rather thin on the ground; ending with a call to ‘ditch the unhelpful language and initiatives of CSR with confidence’.

I suspect that rather than believing CSR is tosh, Griffin is making a play for the business of sceptics by creating a false impression that he agrees all this social responsibility stuff is nonsense, while trying to sell them the same in different packaging.

So Andrew begins by mis-defining CSR as a special programme of activities designed to appease government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This sounds more like affinity marketing; linking yourself to a cause by sponsoring something, say, in an attempt to offset or compensate for some other activity. Griffin’s supposed opponent has already made this same point: ‘Those that apply CSR as “lip gloss” not only miss a trick but leave the door open to considerable reputational challenges.’

Andrew Griffin also complains that CSR sounds like companies aren’t socially responsible. But many are not. A corporation’s board of directors is legally bound to promote the interests of shareholder’s and nobody else.

We learn that the food industry was wrong to implement initiatives on food content and labelling and wrong to change the way it promotes its products; government banned junk food ads anyway. Instead it should have fought its corner… and refused to let us know what’s in our food? Andrew Griffin is unclear and the opposite is more likely to ring true; regulation is the method by which irresponsible industries are punished.

Where the MD of Regester Larkin does make sense is in arguing that the best enhancement of reputation is performance. But performance has to be set in context. Alcoholic products aimed at young teenagers would almost certainly perform very well, but regulators would soon act against the irresponsible corporations behind them.

Andrew Griffin seems to agree; ‘Companies should think about society’s concerns and needs as well as their own.’ And be good corporate citizens. Or, put another way; corporations have social responsibilities.

Bookmarks: