Last week, browsing the Craigslist for writing gigs as usual, I came across an ad that promised decent payments for 800-1200 words business articles if accepted by www.theglasshammer.com - an online publication designed for women executives in finance, law, business and other parts of the big corporation universe.  I’m not a big fan of big corporation, actually to be truthful, I’m an anti-fan, but the name glass hammer made me think of a young spunky corporate rebel (maybe even with a tattoo or two) smashing a skyscraper’s window with a big heavy sledge and I liked the image.  Maybe they were a new-age corporate website, I thought.  Besides, in these tough times a freelance writer can’t be picky.  I sent my resume.

Back came two replies, one from Melissa, one form Nicky.  “Can you do an article on comparing CR and CSR as a test for us?” they asked.  “What is the difference?  Is there any?”

I hit the ground running – after all CR and CSR could stand for anything so I needed to do some research.  The information wasn’t that hard to dig up.  As the conscience-focused marketplaces of the 21st century broaden and grow, the demand for more ethical business processes is increasing.  As employers, employees, and general public work to shape and define the new, holistic corporate culture and ethics, the concepts of corporate responsibility (CR) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are being discussed everywhere – on-line, in press, and even at special CR executives’ forums.  What is the significant difference that the vital “S” brings to the meaning of the much-discussed abbreviation, and is it drastic enough to focus on the distinction and give the two terms two separate sections in the Webster. 

Businessdictionary.com defines CR and CSR alike as a firm's sense of responsibility towards the community and environment (both ecological and social) in which it operates and draws resources and sustenance from.  Firms express this citizenship through their waste and pollution reduction processes and by contributing educational and social programs as well as by earning adequate returns on the employed resources.

Wikipedia equates CR and CSR, adding SRB (sustainable responsible business) to the mix calling the trio a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model with deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making with a somewhat cute triple-P bottom line: People, Planet, Profit. 

While both Wiki and Businessdictionary.com do not distinguish between the two terms, some bleeding-age corporate ethics proponents do – and they take different stands.  Ana Arias, a founder of locally sustainable gourmet foods and artisan products company, and a news writer for www.justmeans.com  speculates on the importance of the “S” in her recent article.  “The ‘S’ in the CSR isn’t optional,” she says, raving about executives who pay lip service to the CSR idea, quickly transforming it into the CR concept – what’s best for their company right now.  An active CSR supporter, Ana collects her CSR data on a daily basis, through internet updates, surveys, statistics and expert opinions to stay on top of what companies, consumers, municipalities, and even academics are debating in the CSR world.  Her point is that dropping the “S” out of the abbreviation means losing the essence.  She had seen too many enterprise websites proudly boasting their CSR awareness, only to immediately redefine it as finding a cost-effective solution for their services.  Others start a big CSR initiatives in advertizing campaigns and press coverage while defeating the concept with their no so open actions.  Here are two perfect examples: Toyota invented and manufactured Prius, a great environmentally savvy car, but then the company lobbied against higher mileage standards in California. Here they acted as typical “what’s good for the company” corporate shark, pushing to sell as many cool green cars and making as much money as possible, and ditching the “S” from the CSR entirely.  Another, slightly different example is Amtrak proudly boasting its motto “Earth Matters” and advertizing rail travel as the energy efficient travel choice, while cutting miles of trees along their tracks from Boston to DC to prevent the debris from falling on tracks (pruning trees regularly got to be too expensive) including residential areas where trains whizz by right behind people backyards.  When confronted by angry homeowners raving about the drastically increased noise levels, Amtrak reluctantly admitted that they dropped the ball.  I’d say they dropped the “S” in their CSR vision.

Contradictory to Ana, Jeffrey Hollender, the co-founder of Seventh Generation, an advocate for responsible business practices and the author of the book The Sustainability Revolution, is arguing the “S” is basically a misnomer.  “We try to remove the ‘S’ from CSR whenever we speak about it, because this is not a social or an environmental issue,” he says.  His view is that when the social aspect gets added to CR, it tends to be viewed through an environmental lens, rather than a holistic lens.  He argues that the collective corporate conscience must embrace its impact and responsibility holistically – not just from a social prospective.  “So I say corporate responsibility, because [… ] I'm not signaling that it is about social issues or just environmental issues,” he explains.

After researching a coupla dozen articles and reading enough material to get my brain to the near boiling point, I decided to take a holistic and social approach to my research and conduct a CR vs. CSR poll.  I sent out an email to my yahoo contact list, which included a bunch of my Facebook friends, casting a wide net – from obsessed corporate careerholics who had been diligently climbing the corporate ladder to worker bees who come to the office to earn a paycheck to people who had never worked for a big corporation and never will.  I asked them all to define CR, CSR and also SRB in their own terms and point out the differences if they saw any.  I got back some interesting responses.

“I’ve never even heard the terms!” replied my best friend, a very successful IT professional.  “Who has time to even think about it,” said another, not only as successful, but a VP-level manager of a large team.  Entrepreneurs proved to be more aware.  Writers, PR personnel, social workers and senior VPs turned out to be the most knowledgeable and willing to spend time writing longer replies.  Their exact answers varied, yet they demonstrated an interesting amalgam of Arias’s and Hollender’s opinions:  in the past CR was viewed more as the company’s internal idea of what’s good for the business, while CSR was looked upon as outside the business-scope, a community outreach. However, some indicated in their replies that lately the distinction has started to blend.  As CSR became more popular, CR headed towards a balance between thinking of the company, the community and the world. 

What I found disconcerting while doing my the poll, was that people with high CR/CSR awareness were in the minority, even though they were the employees of the aforementioned big corporations whose CEOs are discussing their proverbial responsibilities at CR summits and joining CROA (Corporate Responsibility Association.)   It seemed that inside a regular everyday nine to five corporate grinder, there simply wasn’t enough time and motivation to even learn the lingo least contemplate over how things should be.  My discovery corroborated with Arias’s plea “if you still haven't taken the time to find out what CSR means in your organization, walk on the wild side and find out.”  When I was finished compiling my poll results, the dilemma between the two- or three-letter abbreviation didn’t seem as crucial as the need for its societal acumen.  “S” is for society, right?  And without it, that precious “S” becomes obsolete, and so will the concept.  

Proud of my research, poll results and my call for increased public conscience, I wrote the article and sent it off to glasshammer.com.  A reply came shortly after: “Thank you, but your writing style is not quite right for us.”  There wasn’t even enough length in it to read between the lines, but I got the point.  The glass hammer was not a new-age corporate website with a revolutionary holistic view of what a big firm should be.  Their catchy name drew a cool vision in my head, but it was a product of my imagination.  The glass hammer operated within a strict and rigid set of rules as every corporation does.  No challenges to the status quo were permitted.  No creativity or thinking out of the box was allowed.  No one was interested in what the real people of the real world had to say – in fact if the people weren’t employed by a corporation their opinions weren’t even counted.  My article portrayed the corporate bureaucrats in a rather unfavorable light – although unintentionally, but the damage has been done.  I have proved to be dangerously full of anarchistic ideas – no one asked me to do the poll, so why did I embark on that unauthorized initiative?   Why couldn’t I wrap up with an inscrutable quote of some high-level VP on the “S” subject instead of an almost Marxist call to the masses?  As a result, I have taken myself out of the glass hammer’s brain and gene pool before the ink dried on the page.  Well, thank god.  Because I still think debating over the stupid letter is a waste of time and forming the social conscience is far more important. When the big corporations realize that “S” is for society, they will stop arguing over the bullshit and do something useful. 

Until then, ladies and gentlemen, until then….