四十年，企业社会责任今昔巨变

    但比较1973年和现在的企业社会责任做法，最大的不同在于，现在的公司探究这个问题时往往会超越公关层面，寻找那些最具商业意义的活动。公关效益当然是件好事，但这往往不是唯一目的。

    柯博瑞举了个例子，即Levi Strauss形形色色旨在降低生产用水和能耗的环保计划。它们一方面或许能帮助这个星球，一方面也会降低成本，在竞争激烈的服装行业提升利润。

    接下来是如何管理风险的问题。柯博瑞说：“1995年我们制订供应商水质指引时，很多公司，包括我们的供应商们，都质疑为什么他们得投资建设水处理设施。”但“今天，水已成为这个行业中的重要问题。”在有些国家，比如中国，政府已经开始关闭那些没有采取适当水处理措施的工厂。我们在倡导这些指引时，不仅改善了环境，也改善了业务。”

    这个注重商业效益的案例帮助当代企业社会责任摆脱了伯克所担心的社会运动形式。1973年的伯克文章还记录了商业保险公司CNA Financial Corp.编撰的《企业社会责任细则》：详细介绍了can的建议，怎样才能让所有高管都参与到社会目标中来，进而让下属也参与进来。整个手册有点福音书的意味，似乎要展开一场全面的除恶战争。但是，这一切要花多少钱，谁来为此买单，这些问题似乎没人谈起，”伯克写道。

    CNA公司企业传讯部副总裁萨拉•庞表示，四十年前的CSR“非常强调从上至下，采用的是指挥和掌控的形式。”几十年来最大的演变是“底层员工开始参与进来，共同形成和推动企业责任和策略。”CNA公司的员工可以在公司有业务运营的各个社区自行选择慈善和义工项目，然后，CAN公司再给予相应的支持。

    为什么要这么做？分析显示，本地慈善可以为投入的每一分钱带来更大效应。庞说：“根据双盲研究，我们发现，在美国、加拿大和欧洲的社区中，购买保险的决胜局竞争中，积极参与社区活动的企业会胜出。”捐赠和义工服务让CNA的名字以一种更有效、更深入的方式出现在公众面前，而且成本往往还低于某些广告。

    或者，正如伯克在1973年所述，“那些内心是不折不扣的建设者、那些对万能金钱拥有强烈渴望的企业高管们或许仍然会得出结论，积极承担社会责任的形象符合公司利益。”他引用诺贝尔奖经济学家保罗•萨缪尔森的话，在真实世界里，一家大公司“不只是可能会参与社会责任；它最好努力做好这件事。”（财富中文网）

    The biggest difference, though, between the 1973 approach to CSR and today's is that companies delving into this issue tend to wind up looking beyond PR to activities that make the most business sense. The PR benefit is a plus, of course, but that tends not to be the only one.

    Kobori, for instance, lists Levi Strauss's various environmental initiatives aimed at using less water and energy during production. While that may help the planet, it also lowers costs, which boosts profits in the competitive apparel industry.

    And then there's the question of managing risk. Kobori says, "When we established our supplier water quality guidelines in 1995, many, including our suppliers, questioned why they needed to invest in building water treatment facilities." But, "today, water is a significant issue across the industry. In countries like China, the government is moving to shut down factories that do not have proper water treatment. In initiating these guidelines, we not only improved outcomes for the environment, we also improved outcomes for our business."

    This focus on the business case has helped modern CSR initiatives evolve from the crusading sorts Burck fretted about. The 1973 article chronicled CNA Financial Corp.'s production of "an elaborate manual on corporate responsibility -- a document that details just how CNA proposes to involve all its executives in social goals, and how they in turn should involve their charges. The whole opus has a somewhat evangelical tone, suggesting the marching orders for an all-out war on the devil. What it all will cost and who will pay for it are matters nobody seems to talk about," Burck wrote.

    Sarah Pang, vice president of CNA's corporate communications department, says that 40 years ago CSR "was a very top-down, command-and-control kind of exercise." The biggest evolution over the decades has been "employee involvement at the grassroots level to shape and drive corporate responsibility and strategies." CNA employees in each community where the company does business can choose priorities for giving and volunteering, which CNA then supports.

    The reason? Analysis suggested that local giving produced more bang for the buck. "In blind studies, we would find that in communities throughout the U.S., Canada, and Europe, when it comes to a tie-breaker about buying insurance, people who are involved in the community win the tie," Pang says. Donations and volunteering get the CNA name out in front of the public in a way that's more effective, and often cheaper, than some kinds of advertising.

    Or, as Burck put it in 1973, "Corporate executives who are strict constructionists at heart, and who harbor powerful lusts for Almighty Dollars, might nevertheless conclude that an activist social posture was good for their companies." He quoted Paul Samuelson, the Nobel laureate economist, who said that in the real world, a large corporation "not only may engage in social responsibility; it had damn well better try to do so."