The Pepsi Refresh project is something I keep bumping into, inside this blog, as well as conversations outside. I admit to a bias towards it, because I somehow sense a sincerity in its approach. Some time back, Surekha shared with me a document on which we debated a bit. From what I’ve been reading, Pepsi hasn’t given (at least clearly) this project a CSR label, so the debate over whether CSR money has been spent well or not is a little pointless. Besides it was more on crowdsourcing CSR .
But thankfully, the national animal ensured that we continued the debate. Aircel’s ‘Save the Tiger’ has also not been given a label, but it does give a good handle to convey my thoughts on CSR, especially since there are at least a couple of good posts on it already, by L.Bhat and Karthik. Harish’s ‘Branding with a cause‘ is a more general, but very relevant read in this context. Aircel’s high decibel campaign ensured that most of everyone knew there were only 1411 tigers left. If awareness was the objective, as stated, it’s been done, especially since the slacktivist generation has retweeted and facebook-fanned it so much that even the tigers must know now. They haven’t been asked whether they want to be saved in a planet full of us, but that’s a different debate. So is the debate whether Aircel should complete the loop, after all why can’t we? (and maybe there’s another phase anyway) But I digress, and generalise. Sorry.
(Image Courtesy: Tom Fishburne)
The questions I have are these. Should CSR be related to the business domain or not? Aircel’s was not, but as Surekha rightly pointed out, they chose a topic that would connect with their target audience. My problem with that, though it helps stand out from the clutter in a commodity category, is the lack of context. With Pepsi, though one could say the project has nothing to do with sugared water, there was always a ‘youth’ context, which was established long ago. Now, if it were connected with the business, and it is possible with say, the pepsi project (surekha gave me at least 2 excellent ideas) I would turn around and say, vested interests, and doubt the sincerity of their efforts. ‘The big corporate giving us eyewash’ view. It would also bring in ROI measures etc, which I find hard to associate with CSR. Roshni put it succinctly when she said ‘sort of like proclaiming, hey, we did charity’.
In trying to find a solution, I remembered a post by Umair Haque on ‘Great to good, which, perhaps unwittingly, made me think of a similarity between social media and CSR. As mentioned in my last post, the piecemeal approach to social media is something I dislike. Its as though it exists stand alone inside a box, I think I have a similar problem with CSR as a label. So, (simplistically put), what if the label were to be taken of and every process was carried out with an inbuilt csr approach – from creating environmentally friendly, sustainable products/projects and choice of partners/vendors to eco friendly packaging and everything in between? Oh yes, practical business considerations. I forgot. 🙂
until next time, with great responsibility comes great power?
Relevant Read: Cause Effect
PS: JK cement deserves appreciation for its support of an unrelated, but worthy cause – bikinis 😉
PPS: While on tigers, this one, by my good friend Blues, is a killer read 😀
the longest ‘disagreement’ ive had w/ @manuscrypts has been on this – brands, CSR and causes http://bit.ly/9S3i9u
there is immense logic in corporates engaging in csr in areas impacted by their business.
roshni’s ‘hey we did charity’ applies more to cheque book philanthropy – philantrophy for the word play addict in you :)- or tokenism/masking in the form of campaigns like save the tiger that appear non-serious if not sustained. the cynicism (eyewash) which you express (and whatever discussion i had with you was on the premise that the corporate would have a serious csr commitment) can well apply even to the pepsi or aircel project. i believe a csr program becomes more sustainable when it is linked to their business. companies will suddenly see business sense in csr and i see nothing wrong in it, if their intent and commitment to the cause is serious. a sustainable campaign is also what would eventually make a real difference. let’s also accept companies exist to make profits and there is no need for them to be seen as NGOs. they have stakeholders and investors to answer as well.
the way i look at it, all csr funds need not be put in one single cause. if the company is large enough, they can engage in csr programs both from the business and consumer point of view. there’s no reason why a b2b/ b2c approach cannot be adopted. while the b2b approach can aid business growth while supporting a cause (if a retail giant were to work in the area of farmer empowerment and also buy produce directly from them), the b2c approach can be either linked to business ( ‘drink responsibly’ by alcohol companies) or consumers (say, a music label undertaking a clean and green campus programme). the eventual aim of these programs would be to generate goodwill, build brand, sustainable development and yes, increase sales.
Good observation on removing labels and creating an organisation and process that’s chooses to be and make responsible choices.
Its the high road – and ultimately a choice that organisation need to make or not.
Cheers
Anita
I agree to most of what Surekha has to say.
I will add that CSR does not really need to have budget if CSR is the way you plan your strategy. That implies that the strategy of the company is responsible itself. E.g: If you optimize the supply chain, it will actually save you money than cost you money and no CSR money will be required only CSR thinking / strategizing will be required.
Again, Carbon Offsets is another example where you are investing something and you are getting returns for it. (you could also get these returns by paying for them, and not really improving anything.)
Philanthropy could be a part of CSR when we talk about employee volunteering or Pro Bono work, but if you look at it from a different angle, its actually employee engagement. You are engaging your employees and they will be more tuned in with the work they do.
Initiatives where companies provide education, target bottom of the pyramid, create a white space.. are all examples of future markets that these companies could have. And according to me, thinking of the bottom-line is perfectly fine since a company also has a responsibility to its employees and shareholders. Doing Good while Making / Saving Money should be the way companies should look at CSR and they will make a mark.
Cause Branding is something that happens a lot in the US and research (Gartner or McKinsey i thnk) has shown that it really gets you no where in terms of sales. It might get your name out there, but if the customer is not buying your product but knows your name, it might not be a successful strategy.
I enjoyed your post and discuss and apologize for butting in the Twitter Chat 🙂
Most indian companies dont do csr. csr is exactly what it says….social responsibility. giving back to society some part of what they have got from it. like toyota funds environmental ngos, J&J healthcare, education and sanitation etc.
aircel is more of a marketing gimmick than csr. what the campaign did was say that the company stands for tiger conservation and it also put aircel in everybody’s mind. from being a nobody, suddenly its been talked about across the country.
if they had put the adspends into projects/ngos working for tiger conservation, then it would have been real-time csr
surekha: completely agree with your point on a better impact when connected with their business areas.. but yet, i somehow feel that its just a better business practice rather than anything to do with a label… and thanks to a distrust for large corporates, I wonder whether the label/s would take away from anything good they do…
and you must must add philantrophy in urban dictionary!! awesome 🙂
Anita: yep, and its not an easy choice.. the first thought is that if it were all seamless, would there be accountability and ROI or would it become irrelevant?
Geet: hmm, maybe its semantics, but i’d use approach instead of strategy 🙂 so, optimising may not, for example, be eco friendly, so you’d need to make a choice… excellent excellent points in the next two paras, and thanks to you, i remembered something i wrote on the subject earlier!! using philips as an example http://bit.ly/anGhuv the thought though, is, if, while doing these, the organisation’s basic business practices aren’t really ‘socially responsible’, then this would be a waste… meanwhile, thanks for ‘butting in’, the very idea of Twitter is to promote, exactly this 😀
bips: so perhaps when aircel put in this kind of money into the project, they perhaps also had deliverables in mind.. and if this is indeed a version of csr, then this kind of accountability is what worries me…
the inbuilt csr approach you refer to is corporate governance. it exists. it still doesnt take away the need for robust csr programs, and a serious csr and isr commitment.
I also agree with Surekha. Very interesting observation.