|
|
The social responsibility boom , as we know it today, is just over twenty years old. Before that there are very clear antecedents, however, the most decisive events that signaled the change of corporations towards a more responsible path are not even three decades old. The Brundtland Report , which gave rise to the term " Sustainable Development ", was published only in 1987; Institutions such as the GRI or the Global Compact were not born until 1997 and 1999, respectively; The book NO LOGO , which unleashed a storm of criticism of companies due to their questionable social behavior, was published only in 2000. In this framework, social responsibility is a very young business discipline, however, its name has changed again and again. It is not uncommon to find terms such as corporate responsibility , corporate citizenship , Environment, Social and Government (ESG), especially in stock market circles and yes, also sustainable development , to refer to practically the same concept within companies: the responsible conduct of operations. a company with respect to its government, society and the environment. If CSR is young as a corporate discipline, the alignment of companies with it is even more so.
Those who seem to have understood the Phone Number List topic in depth currently tend to feel more comfortable with the term sustainable than with the adjective socially responsible . Thus, the position that is emerging in these organizations, with increasing force, is the Chief Sustainability Officer ( CSO ). Why is the term social responsibility giving way to sustainable development within organizations? There may be several reasons, however one that seems most solid is that the “social” label does not end up convincing many that it can also encompass environmental issues. In that sense, the word sustainability is much more generous, since by definition it contemplates social, environmental and economic results, known as the triple bottom line or triple bottom line , and which are the basis of every sustainability report (or sustainability, whatever you want to call it). In contrast to the above, some companies that resist this change from CSR to Sustainable Development suggest that sustainability lacks that “stakeholder management” component that has CSR as its basis; that dialogue with interest groups that constitutes the main intangible asset of a responsible company; However, that does not seem to bother much to the corporations that are moving their strategies towards this denomination.
We see a good example of the above with Google , who believes that it already works on lines that are committed to sustainability and does not think that these should be accompanied by 'management' of Social Responsibility , so that it does not develop specific bodies for this, such as the traditional CSR committees so present in many companies; Google simply executes its business within what it calls a strategic framework for sustainable development . While this transition is happening in Europe, in Mexico we are still struggling to understand the concept, and companies are pursuing badges and certifications without even knowing why or why they are doing it. That is, they ignore that aligning strategic planning with a socially responsible or sustainable model (after all, it is terminology), gives the company benefits that it would never obtain otherwise. Instead, they continue to think that being socially responsible is a seal that they can put on their corporate stationery, on their packaging, trucks and facades as if it were a trophy to show off with their clients... In that understanding, they have a long way to go. on the path of responsibility, and even more so on the path of sustainability .
|
|
發表於 18:28:49