From CSR to brand integrity - McIntosh, 2007

McIntosh M. 2007. Progressing from Corporate Social Responsibility to brand integrity. In May S., Cheney G., Roper J., 2007, The debate over Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 45-56.

Key issue: brand integrity. As the relational device liking a corporation to its customers, the brand becomes the unit of analysis for social repsonsibility.

A review of the milestones in the last decade of CSR history opens the article: Brent Spar and Ogoni land (killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa) scandals involving Shell, the Global Reporting Initiative, SA8000, AccountAbility, Global Compact...

A change in perspective in the CSR agenda is then invoked by the author. Social responsibility cannot be limited to the juridical boarders of the corporation legally owning the brand. A link is made between the integrity of decision makers and consumers and the integrity of the corporation via the brand integrity. Brands, in facts, are more democratic than corporations, since are ubiquitous and owned by all of us. Complexity, system thinking and social network appraoched must be introduced in the CSR debate agenda.

The context of CSR today is described as the development of voluntary schemes based on a “new social partnership” (Zadek-Nelson, 2000) in multistakeholder dialogues.

The “holy graal” of CSR, its link with profitability is then discusses critically. McIntosh reminds that it is business to be at service of society and not vice versa. The benefits of CSR are the society-wise and not only for business. Some studies confirming the CSR-profitability link are quoted: McIntosh, 1998, Journal of Corporate Citizenship; King (KPMG), 2001, Journal of Corporate Citizenship; SustainAbility & UN Environment Program, 2005, Buried treasure; Dow Jones Sustainability Index (2005); World Economic Forum (2005); Fussler, 2004.

The characteristics of the proactive CSR corporation are identified:

• Is part of a sectors targeted by activism
• Has values-led leadership
• Engage stakeholders
• Takes part in the dialogue about voluntary and regulatory CSR initiatives

However, the way for CSR is still long: the Association of Certied Chartered Accountants found that in 2004 there were only 1500-2000 companies producing sustainability reports; in the same year, the US conference board found that CSR is not in the agenda of CEOs.

The corporate citizens are segmented into four groups:

1. CSR proactives (global)
2. Partly proactive (law-abiding but proactive on some CSR aspects)
3. SMEs (struggling to comply with law and establish good local relationships)
4. Informal/illegal sectors (not incorporated, avoid to pay taxes)

The origin of the CSR problems is traced back to october 1856, with the birth of the corporate personhood, a ”monster” with unlimited mortality and expansion. The boardroom members do nol lack of ethical frameworks, but the separation fo ownership and management lead to the adoption of finance as the leanguage of the boardroom.

Finally, the issue of integrity is discussed. Three definitions taken from Oxford English Dictionary are provided: 1) the quality of being honest and morally upright; 2) state of being whole and unified; 3) soundness of construction. Surviving corporations in CSR have a range of complex non-business relationship based on trust and love. Corporations are self-organising systems that interface with public policy objectives for sustainable business. The challenges of holding corporations accountable are the blurry boudaries (which complicate data collection) and the combination of science outcomes and multistakeholder engagement which creates uncertainty due to multiple values involved.

The new business therefore has to be a human-scale corporation that serves society, not vice-versa. This is based on three consitions

1. A small ecological footprint;
2. Enhanced social equity;
3. Extended sense of futurity.

The human-scale corporation has long term (limited) life, appropriate size and a balance of power among stakeholders.

Reinventing brand integrity means evaluating the social and ecological footprint of brands, rather than corporations, considering issues such as global supply chains. They create value through values, as exemplified by the theories of Lovemarks (Roberts, 2004) and Corporate Religion (Kunde, 1978). Brands are ubiquitous and are owned by stakeholders, which are more informed and connected thanks to ICT. Corporations now have learned that misbehavior affects brand equity. The new CSR paradigm involves shifting emphasis from the corporation to society as a whole.