CSR已死？——你同意这样的论断吗

CSR已死？

“CSR正处在转折期”，这在近期举行的欧盟CSR多利益相关方论坛（MSF）上再明显不过了。几年前，这些现象还是司空见惯：跨国公司设置可持续发展议程，投资社区，在舞台上展示他们的成功，谈论一个又一个商业案例等等。

中小企业显得落后了一点，倒不一定因为没有实际行动，而是由于没有大肆谈论自己对社会的投资。大企业可以组织会议、印制宣传册和举办演讲，比如“可持续发展、气候、创新、教育和包容等”议题，将之内在地联系起来，这都可以为演讲者赢得掌声。

这样的时代已经过去了。

现在，报刊书籍充斥着类似的标题：“CSR 已死？还是管理不善？”，“CSR 之死”，“CSR 已死，接下来呢？”此外，像埃森哲和联合国这样的机构也陆续研究指出——笃信CSR的CEO们怀揣着些许不安：鼎力“支持”CSR那么多年，但并不确定其回报如何。

同时，公众讨论的话题（像在欧盟MSF 期间）还部分停留在10年前，仍在谈论企业的“自愿”捐款或是仅仅专注于合规和报告议题。这意味着什么？它代表着公众的整体探讨在某种程度上变得模糊不清，即便CSR 本身已有较权威的定义，比如欧盟委员会的说法就是“企业影响社会的责任”。

但是，企业影响社会的这部分责任可能“死掉”吗？打个比方说，父母对子女的责任会“消失”吗？我的理解是，责任现在并且将永远在那里，它从来不会“死”。所以，我们是时候该摒弃诸如此类的讨论了，CSR应该是实实在在的，不存在2.0、3.0或4.0之分，这里只有一种责任。

也许，上述误解源于CSR一词这么多年的持续“长胖”：什么都可以算作是CSR，其概念越来越含糊。那么，问题还是那些：投资回报率（ROI）在哪？ CSR能够为我的公司带来什么？可能除了食品和化妆品行业外，消费者并不是很关心什么CSR，那我们又为何自取烦恼？ CSR商业案例或“负责任行为的商业案例”的问题已经凸显出来。答案其实很简单：没有一个关于真正负责任行为的商业案例。人们期望企业和个人的责任行动大量涌现，但并没有给予其多大的奖赏。

或者，我们可以借用唐•舒尔茨（Don Schultz）的话：“CSR不是说大家为什么买你的产品，而在于为什么不买。”由于责任预期的存在，企业的不正当行为会得到惩罚，但其正当行为却容易被忽略。从这个角度来说，承担责任不一定意味创新，往往是要规避风险，也不是业绩导向的销售战略。

所以，现在怎么办？ CSR和商业如何以更好的方式连接在一起？尽管负责任行为不会直接推动企业的营收增长，但商业创新还是会助益经济发展。然而，每一次创新并非必然有益于社会，所以真正的挑战是如何指引创新的方向，造福于人类和社会。我们怎样以创新丰富公众的生活？创造共享价值？

当我们超越企业的核心职责，创新性地解决社会问题，这就是在孕育共享价值。这些解决方案可能还无法为巨额利润的本能所驱动，但可以为企业和社会构建积极的商业价值。所以，我们的出路在于超越责任，专注社会（我倾向于表述为社会的）创新，为商业和社会价值划定正确方案的那些创新。

以上才是我们所有人真正需要探讨的。

老于短评：

CSR需要升级到CSI？

看到我同事李长海编译的《CSR已死？》一文，极为震撼。长海把文章的标题意译为“CSR已死？”，引起我的极大共鸣。

从事企业社会责任已经十余年，我们在不遗余力地推进企业社会责任，而现在我们却面临着“CSR已死？”的声音。这是我们的方向搞错了？还是环境和形势变化了？

推进企业社会责任，十年来从未轻松过。CSR到底是什么？CSR到底能给企业带来什么？我们满怀激情去讲去说，面临大多是赞同的同时，也面临种种质疑、疑惑，甚至是轻视。这种现象其实很正常。

近年来，特别是从2013年和英特尔中国讨论企业社会责任生态圈建设问题起，我就越来越强烈地感受到，CSR的价值一定不止于规范运营那点事儿，一定要体现企业和社会价值的共同提升，而这种共同价值的创造一定是通过创新的方式实现的。

特别是在和英特尔中国的朋友以及信息技术企业的沟通中，这种感受更为明显。环境变了，形势变了，CSR的价值应该有更高层面的体现，这样CSR才会更具生命力。

CSR生命力应该在于企业创新性地解决社会问题，这种创新性既是企业围绕社会问题解决而获得发展，也是企业创立的初心；这种创新性既是企业内部业务的创新，也是产业链合作完成创新，更是将用户、公众纳入创新体系的创新。

CSR不会死。企业的规范合规是永远的话题，企业的运营方式更负责也是永远的话题，企业创新性解决社会问题更是永远的话题。

因此，我想说，在信息技术迅速发展的今天，在社会问题更多被关注的今天，CSR企业社会责任，还应有更多的CSI企业社会创新。

从CSR到CSI，你同意吗？

（本文于2015 年2 月发表在CSR Europe“企业2020”博客，作者托马斯•奥斯堡（Thomas Osburg）是英特尔（欧洲）企业事务和创新总监，李长海编译）

以下是英文原文

Where are we with CSR, Sustainability and all the rest?

CSR is at a turning point and the recent EU Multistakeholder Forum (MSF) on CSR has underlined this very clearly. Some years ago it was easy: large multinational companies were driving the agenda, investing in communities, being called on stage to showcase their success, talking about a business case, and so on.

SMEs were lagging a little behind, but not necessarily for lack of action; rather, because they were not talking about their investments in society. Conferences were organised, brochures were printed and speeches were held. Often without too much preparation-it was sufficient to name-drop terms: “Sustainability, Climate, Innovation, Education, and Inclusion”, and somehow link them together. That guaranteed a standing ovation for the speaker.

Those days are gone.

The headlines are now dominated by books and articles with titles like“Is CSR dead? Or just mismanaged?”,“The death of CSR”or“CSR is dead. What comes next?”In addition, there are studies (from Accenture and the UN, for example) that nicely describe the new unease CEOs have with the concept of CSR. In their view, they were“supporting”it for years but are unsure about the outcomes.

At the same time, public discussions (i.e. during the EU MSF) are partially falling back 10 years and still talking about the “voluntary” contributions of companies or focusing merely on compliance and reporting issues. So what does this all mean? It means the whole discussion is somehow getting messy, even though CSR is defined crisply and clearly by the European Commission as “the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society”.

But then–can the responsibility of enterprises for their societal Impact be“dead”? Or can the responsibility of parents for their children be“dead”? Responsibility is and will always be there, it will never be“dead”, so let’s stop that discussion. CSR is here to stay. And not CSR 2.0, 3.0 or 4.0. There is only one responsibility.

Perhaps the misunderstanding stems from the increased“weight”the term CSR has had to shoulder in the past years. Everything was CSR and the concept became less and less clear. So again come the questions: Where is the ROI? What does CSR bring to my company? Consumers do not seem to care at large, other than maybe in food and cosmetics, so why bother anymore? The question of the business case for CSR or, in other words, the“business case for responsible behavior” has bubbled up again. The answer to this question is easy: there is not really a business case for responsible behavior. Our societies expect responsible behavior from companies and individuals, but don’t actively reward such a behavior.

Or in the words of Don Schultz: “CSR is not about why people buy your products. It is about why people don’t buy your products”. As responsibility is expected, wrong behavior of companies gets punished, whilst right behavior gets ignored. Taking responsibility is not necessarily innovative, it’s often about risk avoidance and not a strategy to sell more.

So what now? How do we link it to Business in a better way? While behaving responsibly will not really drive company revenues, business innovations will add to the economic bottom-line. But not every innovation is necessarily good for society, so the real challenge is to give those innovations a positive direction, an appreciation of humans and society. How are peoples’lives enriched by these innovations? How can we create shared value?

When we look beyond core responsibilities of the firms to the creation of new solutions to social problems, this is where shared value is made. These solutions may not be driven by making enormous profits, but they can create a positive business value for the company and for society alike. So the way forward now is to go beyond our responsibility and focus on social (or, as I prefer) societal innovations. Innovations, that offer a positive answer to“What does it bring my company”and“What’s in it for Society”.

This is the real discussion we all need to have.

(责任编辑：小黑)