Visions of the Future

Visions of the Future:

CSR, sustainable business and capitalism in 2020

A blog by Wayne Visser

Over the last 12 weeks, I have shared examples from around the world of an approach to CSR (by which I mean Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility) in which companies seek to identify and tackle the root causes of our present unsustainability and irresponsibility, typically through innovating business models, revolutionising their processes, products and services and lobbying for progressive national and international policies.

 Forecasts for 2020

Based on this vision – and the evolution of sustainable business over the past 20 years – I have made ten forecasts for 2020. They are meant as a basis for discussion and action, rather than an attempt at predictive certainly. Hence, I am inviting you to join a dialogue about the future. Here is my opening gambit:

Forecast 1 – By 2020, we will see most large, international companies having moved through the first four types or stages of CSR (defensive, charitable, promotional and strategic) and practising, to varying degrees, transformative CSR, or CSR 2.0.

Forecast 2 – By 2020, reliance on sustainable business codes, standards and guidelines such as the UN Global Compact, ISO 14001and SA 8000, will be seen as a necessary but insufficient way to practise CSR. Instead, companies will be judged on how innovative they are in using their products and processes to tackle social and environmental problems.

Forecast 3 – By 2020, self-selecting ‘ethical consumers’ will become less relevant as a force for change. Companies—strongly encouraged by government policies and incentives—will scale up their choice-editing and cease offering ‘less ethical’ product ranges, thus allowing guilt-free shopping.

Forecast 4 – By 2020, cross-sector partnerships will be at the heart of all CSR approaches. These will increasingly be defined by business bringing its core competencies and skills (rather than just its financial resources) to the party.

Forecast 5 – By 2020, companies practising sustainable business will be expected to comply with global best-practice principles, such as those in the UN Global Compact or the Ruggie Human Rights Framework, but simultaneously demonstrate sensitivity to local issues and priorities.

Forecast 6 – By 2020, progressive companies will be required to demonstrate full life-cycle management of their products, from cradle to cradle. We will see most large companies committing to the goal of zero-waste, carbon-neutral and water-neutral production, with mandated take-back schemes for most products.

Forecast 7 – By 2020, some form of Generally Accepted Sustainability Practices (GASP) will be agreed, much like the Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP), including consensus principles, methods, approaches and rules for measuring and disclosing sustainable business. Furthermore, a set of credible CSR rating agencies will have emerged.

Forecast 8 – By 2020, many of today’s sustainable business practices will be mandatory requirements. However, CSR will remain a voluntary practice – an innovation and differentiation frontier – for those companies that are either willing and able, or pushed and prodded through non-governmental means, to go ahead of the legislation to improve quality of life around the world.

Forecast 9 – By 2020, corporate transparency will take the form of publicly available sets of mandatory disclosed social, environmental and governance data—available down to a product life-cycle impact level—as well as Web 2.0 collaborative sustainable business feedback platforms, WikiLeaks-type whistle-blowing sites and product-rating applications.

Forecast 10 – By 2020, CSR will have diversified back into its specialist disciplines and functions, leaving little or no sustainable business departments behind, yet having more specialists in particular areas (climate, biodiversity, human rights, community involvement, etc.), and more employees with knowledge of how to integrate CSR issues into their functional areas (HR, marketing, finance, etc.).

Transforming capitalism

These forecasts all suggest a transformational agenda for sustainable business, or CSR. I call this CSR 2.0, but the labels do not matter; the substance of the change matters. However, underlying these trends is an even more potent shift, which is an evolution from our winner-takes-all shareholder-driven model of capitalism to what we might call Sustainable and Responsible Capitalism, or Purpose-Inspired Capitalism.

For me, this means testing all economic activity against five principles:

  1. Productive investment – Ensuring that money is channelled towards productive investments and not into speculative trading in the casino economy, as the Co-operative Bank has demonstrated successfully.
  2. Long termism – Understanding that real wealth is created by taking a long-term perspective, including the needs of future generations, as Al Gore’s Generation Investment and Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway practice.
  3. Transparency – Embracing transparency in revenues and social and environmental impacts, in line with the Global Reporting Initiative, International Integrated Reporting Council, Carbon Disclosure Project and Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).
  4. Full cost accounting – Internalising social and environmental costs (externalities), through taxes (e.g. on carbon and pollution) and social and environmental profit & loss accounts, such as Puma is pioneering.
  5. Social inclusion – enacting Michael Porter and Mark Kramer’s concept of creating shared value, and Stuart Hart and C.K. Prahalad’s model of serving the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) markets, as demonstrated by the BOP 2.0 Protocol.

We live in exciting times – a true period of bifurcation. We live on the cusp of the post-industrial revolution, and for the first time, we can finally glimpse what a new model of sustainable business and purpose-inspired capitalism could look like.

But as with so many things in life, the quest for a sustainable future is like a wheelbarrow. The only way we will make progress is if we pick it up and push forward. And the only way we will motivate people to join us in this effort is if they believe in what we are building.

That means having a compelling vision of the future, what I call a 5-S vision of “future fitness” in which our products, organisations, communities, cities or countries are Safe, Smart, Shared, Sustainable and Satisfying. What that means and how we get there is another quest, another book and another set of stories.

For now, we have come to end of this “Searching for Sustainable Business” series of articles, which were all extracted, summarised and adapted from my book, The Quest for Sustainable Business. I hope that they have given you a glimpse into some of the insights from my own journey to more than 65 countries over the past 20 years – and that you will be inspired to continue on your own quest.

Download

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”download” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/blog_csrwire13_wvisser.pdf”]Pdf[/button] Visions of the Future: CSR, sustainable business and capitalism in 2020 (blog)

Related websites

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/books/the-quest-for-sustainable-business”]Link[/button] The Quest for Sustainable Business (book)

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.csrinternational.org”]Link[/button] CSR International (website)

Cite this article

Visser, W. (2013) Visions of the Future: CSR, sustainable business and capitalism in 2020. Wayne Visser Blog Briefing, 10 September 2013.

Share this page

Share

America’s Idea Incubators

America’s idea incubators:

Seeding a revolution in capitalism

A blog by Wayne Visser

In this article I want to share insights from some of America’s greatest ‘meme-weavers’ – pioneers of new thinking, who I have been fortunate enough to meet and talk to about the future sustainability of business and the world.

Joseph Stiglitz: Globalization Guru

Let me begin with Nobel Prize winner in Economic Sciences and former World Bank Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist, Joseph Stiglitz. I wanted to know his views on globalisation, which is a theme running through many of his books. It is clear that Stiglitz is sympathetic to the critics of globalisation. As he told me:

We have learned how to temper capitalism – how to make the market economy work in the advancing industrial countries for most citizens – but we haven’t learned how to temper globalisation. One of the paradoxes is that, while in principle everybody was supposed to be better off as a result of globalisation, in practice the opposition to globalisation rose from both the North and the South. There were some winners but there were a lot more losers.

The problem with globalisation, according to Stiglitz, is not with the concept or the trend itself, but with the way globalisation has been managed. However, he is hopeful that change is possible:

The most exciting developments are the result of the efforts of civil society. Before the Seattle riots, there was an enthusiasm that was not tempered by reality. As people started looking at what happened at the IMF and World Bank – failures of regulation of the global financial markets – there was a widespread recognition that something has not worked well. So understanding there is a problem is necessary before you’re going to change.

Stuart Hart: Capitalism Reformer

Someone who shares concerns about the way the global economy has evolved is Stuart Hart, author of Capitalism at the Crossroads and co-creator of the ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’ (BOP) model of doing business with the world’s poor. He told me that:

We haven’t resolved the dark side of 19th century industrial capitalism. But I’m absolutely convinced that we’re in the midst of the next transformation, to a sustainable form of capitalism that actually has the potential to solve social and environmental problems; to create wealth for everyone in the world and to take us more quickly to the next generation of potentially clean and sustainable technology.

Interestingly, unlike many other authors who have written on capitalism, such as Naomi Klein, Hart focuses on the positive role that business can play. I asked him if that is justified, given their track record, to which he replied:

I’m a pragmatist, in the sense that I try to assess where the leverage points are for change to occur most rapidly. We’re headed rapidly for the cliff, so to speak. But there is also great potential to change quickly. What makes the world of commerce interesting is its ability to creatively destroy itself, to fall back on Joseph Schumpeter’s term. We have a mechanism through which this change could unfold at the rate that it needs to in order to move us towards a sustainable world before it’s too late.

One way that Hart sees this happening is through the ‘great convergence’ of disruptive clean technology and innovation at the base of the pyramid, which is the focus on his newly established Enterprise for a Sustainable World.

Jeffrey Sachs: Poverty Wizard

Jeffrey Sachs, twice been named among Time Magazine’s 100 most influential world leaders and author of books like The End of Poverty and Common Wealth, is similarly an optimist, but places less faith in the market and more in effective government policy and global collaboration. He told me:

I love markets wherever they work, but markets don’t work for everything. For cell phones, yes, you may be able to reach 40% penetration in Africa, and it’s phenomenal; it’s world-changing. But 40% penetration for immunisations won’t do it. Business has scalability, information and management systems and it holds the technology. But if there’s no market at the end for the public good that we need, then at a minimum we need a public–private partnership.

Sachs concedes that ‘we have to make a global transition to sustainable technologies’, but is adamant that ‘you can’t leave technological transformation to market forces alone.’ Sach has seen enough poverty not to be in denial, but his spirit remains indomitable:

Every time I turn around – whether it’s in India, China, Malaysia, or Tanzania – there’s no shortage of reasons for optimism. What is the hardest part of all is managing change and having the understanding of how crucial and how fruitful cooperation can be right now. The problem isn’t our lack of tools; the problem is our ability to manage all these wonderfully powerful tools that we have, to a human effect.

Amory Lovins: Design Imagineer

Another person who seems to relish ‘wicked problems’ is maverick engineer, Amory Lovins, Founder and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute and co-author of books like Factor Four and Natural Capitalism. What makes Lovins happy is ‘barrier-busting – turning into business opportunities each of the 60 to 80 well-known market failures to buying energy and resource efficiency’. He told me:

We’re talking not so much of technologies, as of design methods, or design mentality. Many of the new buildings we’re designing use no, or negative, amounts of energy – they create more than they use. It’s now perfectly normal to talk about tripled efficiency cars, heavy lorries and airplanes. United Technology has cut its energy intensity 45% in five years. DuPont cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels, and made three billion dollars’ profit on the deal. Efficiency is cheaper than fuel.

I concluded my conversation with Lovins by asking what gives him hope, to which he replied:

Three things stand out. One is the rapid rise of awareness and leadership in the private sector and the corresponding awakening of civil society, empowered by the emerging global central nervous system. Secondly, I’m encouraged by the fact that brains are evenly distributed – one per person –

and as far as we know, there’s nothing in the universe so powerful as six billion minds wrapping around a problem. And third, I’m very encouraged by the quality of the young people I see. They realise there is less time and they need to get on with it. So I think the future is in pretty good hands.

Postscript

These and many other interviews with sustainability thought-leaders from around the world are covered in more depth in The Quest for Sustainable Business, and featured as videos on http://www.waynevisser.com/videos.

Download

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”download” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/blog_csrwire12_wvisser.pdf”]Pdf[/button] America’s idea incubators: Seeding a revolution in capitalism (blog)

Related websites

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/books/the-quest-for-sustainable-business”]Link[/button] The Quest for Sustainable Business (book)

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.csrinternational.org”]Link[/button] CSR International (website)

Cite this article

Visser, W. (2013) America’s idea incubators: Seeding a revolution in capitalism. Wayne Visser Blog Briefing, 3 September 2013.

 

Share this page

Share

Eurocrats take on CSR

Eurocrats take on CSR:

A case of ‘too little, too late’?

A blog by Wayne Visser

The European Commission’s softly-softly approach lacks impact.

CSR dips its toes in policy waters

Continuing on the theme of CSR policy and regulation, introduced in my reflections on Nigeria and India, I want to shine a spotlight on Europe’s policies on CSR, which have been evolving for more than a decade now.

In 2001 the European Commission (EC) issued a Green Paper on CSR, which ‘provided all interested parties with a platform for further discussion with the goal of policy generation in the CSR area in Europe’. After a year of consultation, the White Paper –entitled ‘CSR: A business contribution to sustainable development’ – was released, and represented the official policy intention of the EC in the field of CSR. Both papers were based on a broad consensus and had been debated through a multi-stakeholder process that included companies, business associations, governments, NGOs and trade unions.

After the White Paper, all seemed to go quiet on the European CSR policy front. Meanwhile, however, there was significant progress on waste management and climate change policy. In terms of waste, the 2002 WEEE Directives made a great leap forward on the restriction of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment and the introduction of take-back schemes for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Significant progress was also made on climate change, with a 2003 Directive laying the foundation for the EU Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme, which commenced operation in January 2005 as the largest multi-country, multi-sector carbon trading scheme in the world.

The EC re-entered the fray in March 2006 by establishing the European Alliance on CSR. This is an open alliance of European enterprises, launched to further promote and encourage CSR. The alliance is a political umbrella for CSR initiatives by large companies, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and their stakeholders. In 2006 a research report was published by CSR Europe, the ‘European Cartography on CSR Innovations, Gaps and Future Trends’, which was based on an analysis of 545 CSR-related business solutions and 140 networking activities in 19 EU countries.

Smart, sustainable and inclusive

Things seemed to go quiet again and then, in May 2010, I was invited to make a presentation on CSR in Brussels to the EU High Level Group (HLG), comprising 27 Member State representatives. The topic of my presentation was ‘CSR and the global financial crisis’, and it gave me a fantastic opportunity to talk with some of the people helping to shape the EU agenda. There were a number of trends that I found interesting.

The first was that, whereas formerly CSR was discussed purely as a voluntary activity by business (this was especially clear in the EU’s policy statement on CSR in 2006), there was now increasing discussion and even demand for what Susan Bird, CSR co-ordinator in the Directorate-General for Employment of the European Commission and part of the EU HLG on CSR, called ‘a more active role’, which may involve ‘conditions’ being introduced in the future, although this was all still up for debate.

A second insight was how the competitiveness agenda has changed. The first ten-year economic strategy of the European Union – the Lisbon Agenda, which ended in 2010 – was all about competitiveness and paid very little attention to CSR issues. However, the 2008 European Competitiveness Report dedicated an entire chapter to CSR and countries such as Denmark were claiming that responsible, green growth was central to its international reputation and hence its competitiveness. This changing emphasis is also reflected in the new Lisbon Strategy for 2020, which has as its central goal ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’.

EU strategy on CSR a damp squib

After my visit to Brussels, I concluded that the sleeping giant of CSR policy in Europe was awakening and that we should ‘watch this space’. As it turned out, we did not have to wait very long. In October 2011, ‘A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility’ was launched. The document itself is only 15 pages long (which is a good thing!) and I recommend that everyone reads it. I review the strategy in some detail in The Quest for Sustainable Business. Here, however, let me briefly make six points about the 17 actions that Europe intends to implement.

  1. There is a commitment to create multi-stakeholder CSR platforms for industries. Applying CSR at a sector level makes a lot of sense and a stakeholder engagement approach is always welcome. The concern is that this duplicates many similar initiatives that have already been undertaken by the likes of GRI, WBCSD and industry associations.
  2. The launch of a European CSR award scheme may give CSR some gravitas and greater PR mileage. But the world is already awash with CSR award schemes, and when I look at the sorts of companies that win these awards, I find they tend to be the ‘usual suspects’ who are doing little more than strategic CSR, when what we really need is more transformative approaches.
  3. The problem of greenwash is mentioned, although no specific commitment is made. Regulation on this would be a welcome addition and follows existing best practice in Australia, Canada, Norway and the United Kingdom. There is also an action to develop a code of good practice for self- and co-regulation exercises, which could be interesting, although a lot of this work has already been done by AccountAbility and its suite of AA1000 standards.
  4. The weakest and most disappointing action is on ‘better integration of social and environmental considerations into public procurement’, which has the caveat ‘without introducing additional administrative burdens for contracting authorities or enterprises, and without undermining the principle of awarding contracts to the most economically advantageous tender.’ By including that last phrase, the message is clear: the lowest price will continue to win the day.

Deflecting and devolving responsibility

  1. The only action with any teeth is requiring large companies to commit to the UN Global Compact, or the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, or the ISO 26000 Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility by 2014. But giving companies the choice between these very different principles and guidelines is laughable. It suggests an equivalence between the minimal efforts required to sign up to the Global Compact’s ten principles and the 100 pages or so of detailed guidance across seven core areas in ISO 26000.
  2. There is an attempt to extend the EU policy on CSR down to a national level, requiring member states to develop their own plans. It will keep a few bureaucrats busy but I won’t be holding my breath. I really don’t believe we need more policy or legislation on CSR. What we need is to eliminate the contradictory policies (such as fossil fuel subsidies) and focus on more effective regulation of issues, including labour rights, biodiversity loss and transparency.

Europe has shown policy leadership on many issues, from labour rights and animal rights to environmental management and climate change. However, I can’t help but wonder if this new wave of CSR policy development is doing more to confuse and distract than advance the agenda. Time will tell.

Download

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”download” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/blog_csrwire11_wvisser.pdf”]Pdf[/button] Eurocrats take on CSR: A case of ‘too little, too late’? (blog)

Related websites

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/books/the-quest-for-sustainable-business”]Link[/button] The Quest for Sustainable Business (book)

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.csrinternational.org”]Link[/button] CSR International (website)

Cite this blog

Visser, W. (2013) Eurocrats take on CSR: A case of ‘too little, too late’? Wayne Visser Blog Briefing, 28 August 2013.

Share this page

Share

CSR 2.0: Part 8 (Video)

Extract from a presentation by Dr Wayne Visser at the Korea Social Responsibility Institute (KOSRI) 2012 conference in Seoul.

CSR 2.0: The Future of CSR — Part 8 (Implementing CSR 2.0)

Share

Share

A giant leap backwards on CSR

A giant leap backwards on CSR:

India’s great missed opportunity

How India’s new mandatory CSR legislation and ‘clean green’ policies are taking companies in the wrong direction 

Blog by Wayne Visser

Part of the Searching for Sustainable Business series for CSRwire

Misguiding the arm of the law

In my last blog on sustainable business in Nigeria, I ended with the call for better policy on corporate social responsibility (CSR) – and a caution against mandating CSR directly, as Nigeria has proposed. This is unfortunately a lesson that India has failed to heed. In the past week, major reforms to the country’s Companies Act of 1956 were approved. Many of the changes are a laudable attempt to bring India’s business sector up to date with international trends in corporate governance, transparency and anti-corruption.

Sad to say, however, through this legislation, India is taking giant leap backwards on CSR. The new Companies Bill requires companies with profits over 50 million Rupees (USD 816,000) in the past three years to spend at least 2% of their profits on CSR. At a time when most of the world has moved beyond defensive and philanthropic modes of CSR, towards promotional, strategic and transformative approaches, India’s policy virtually guarantees that its companies will remain stuck in an out-dated charitable mind set.

The Indian legislation allows companies the freedom to choose the issues that their CSR efforts will tackle, which at least in theory allows some scope for strategic alignment of social and environmental issues with business activities. The policy also suggests that failure to spend the required percentage on CSR – or to adequately explain the reasons why – can result in penalties. However, the problem in India as in many developing countries is that the capacity to monitor and enforce is severely challenged by weak, failing or corrupt governments.

India – along with Nigeria and Malaysia, who are also pursuing the mandatory CSR line – should learn from the United Kingdom’s mistakes. Britain created something similar – a Minister for CSR – in 2003, and eventually abandoned it in 2010 as a largely ineffectual strategy. The reason it failed in the UK, and will most likely fail in India, is the same reason that CSR departments often fail in companies: lack of  integration into the core functions of the organisation, and lack of political or economic clout.

In my view, governments should focus on effective regulation of the issues that sustainable business is trying to address (biodiversity loss, labour conditions, climate change, transparency, etc.) rather than regulating sustainable business activities per se. India could have learned valuable lessons from South Africa’s corporate governance reforms, which integrate sustainability, or from the UK and USA’s legal reforms on social enterprise, or from Canada and Spain’s community development companies. Instead, by regulating CSR directly, they are more likely to create bureaucracy, stifle innovation and invite corruption.

Strengthening inclusive business

There are some more other aspects of the new Companies Bill, which could inadvertently have a bigger positive impact on socially responsible business than its mandatory ‘CSR tax’. For instance, the ability to file class action suits has been bolstered, which could allow stakeholders to take legal action against irresponsible companies. The bill also requires that companies disclose the difference in salaries between directors and employee, thus addressing one of the most neglected issues in CSR and sustainability, namely equitable income distribution.

This equity clause comes closer to the transformative agenda that is so urgently required in CSR, not only in India, but around the world. It builds on the promising trend of inclusive business that has been building in India over the past decade. Long before Michael Porter and Mark Kramer’s idea of ‘creating shared value’ (CSV) was introduced, India became a seedbed of innovation for ‘bottom of the pyramid’ (BOP) strategies, following work by CK Prahalad, Stuart Hart and others.

One of the BOP cases I investigated in some detail when I did my CSR lecture tour of India in 2010 is A Little World, a rural microbanking enterprise. Anurag Gupta, the Indian social entrepreneur who founded the company, has used mobile phone and biometric scanner technologies to make banking accessible and affordable to poor households. As a result, a ‘mini-branch’ costs only USD80 to run per month, and millions of illiterate, undocumented villagers can get low-value bank accounts for the first time in their lives. The case study is written up in detail in my book, The Age of Responsibility, and remains a great example of inclusive business.

Green does not always mean good

There are also many inspiring examples in India of how clean technologies like renewable energy and water purification are bringing vital utilities to poor households. However, research by fellow Cambridge academic, Emma Mawdsley, suggests that some of these success stories mask ongoing inequalities of development in Indian society. She presents extensive evidence of how, for example, Delhi’s ‘clean, green’ campaign has mainly benefited the middle and upper classes, while the poor have suffered.

This pattern of social injustice is reflected in the way Delhi is tackling its air pollution problems, with policies that impact badly on the poor. Small polluting industries were relocated with little or no compensation for owners or workers. Older vehicles that do not use Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) sold to other city transport fleets, thus displacing rather than reducing pollution. Even the focus on air pollution represents a middle-class priority, rather than the most pressing need of the poor—clean, available water.

Looking at the issue of water, Mawdsley is similarly critical. The poor are often criminalised for water theft (estimates indicate that as much as 50% of Delhi’s water is unaccounted for in official meter readings
and thus ‘wasted’), while the authorities turn a blind eye to middle- and upper-class illegality. This common practice involves the falsification of meter readings and technologies that can enhance water amounts extracted from already legal connections or from illegal/unregistered ground water sources (through tub and bore wells).

Mawdsley concludes that ‘the pursuit of profitable environmental policies, technologies and change is
desirable if we are to move towards greater sustainability, but the political and social nature of their impacts must be recognised. “Green” does not automatically mean “good”. There will always be winners and losers, but there is a real danger in India at least that the drive towards greater sustainability will have some regressive social outcomes.’

From my own experiences and research, I believe India is certainly a space to watch on sustainable business, and its progress is far from being a foregone conclusion. Whereas there is a sense of order and control in China’s great transition, India is far more chaotic and unmanaged (or unmanageable?). It is almost as if there is a grand experiment in sustainable business – democratic, messy, ad-hoc Indian style, versus controlled, managed, sanctioned Chinese style. Which will prevail is a question for future historians. I think it’s too soon to place bets on either. If we’re lucky, both will succeed in their own way.

Download

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”download” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/blog_csrwire9_wvisser.pdf”]Pdf[/button] A giant leap backwards on CSR: India’s great missed opportunity  (blog)

Related websites

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.waynevisser.com/books/the-quest-for-sustainable-business”]Link[/button] The Quest for Sustainable Business (book)

[button size=”small” color=”blue” style=”tick” new_window=”false” link=”http://www.csrinternational.org”]Link[/button] CSR International (website)

Cite this blog

Visser, W. (2013) A giant leap backwards on CSR: India’s great missed opportunity, Wayne Visser Blog Briefing, 14 August 2013.

Share this page

Share

CSR 2.0: Part 6 (Video)

Extract from a presentation by Dr Wayne Visser at the Korea Social Responsibility Institute (KOSRI) 2012 conference in Seoul.

CSR 2.0: The Future of CSR — Part 6 (Principles of CSR 2.0: Creativity & Scalability)

Continue watching: CSR 2.0: The Future of CSR — Part 7 (Principles of CSR 2.0: Responsiveness & Glocality)

Share

Share

CSR 2.0: Part 5 (Video)

Extract from a presentation by Dr Wayne Visser at the Korea Social Responsibility Institute (KOSRI) 2012 conference in Seoul.

CSR 2.0: The Future of CSR — Part 5 (What is CSR 2.0?)

Share

Share