Is CSR mere “window-dressing”?

The more frequent question about CSR is whether it is good intentions turned into benefit for others or whether it is “window-dressing”.

As I wrote in my previous post (“Social conscience of good business”) CSR is often based on self-interest and profit-making.

Christian Aid puts the following point: “…companies make loud, public commitments to principles of ethical behaviour and undertake “good works”… The problem is that companies frequently use such initiatives to defend operations or ways of working which come in for public criticism.” (Moloney, K. (2006); Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy; p. 107).

Roberts thinks of CSR as of a new form of corporate self-presentation associated with PR, “of prosthesis… that repairs its appearance [corporate body] but in no way changes its actual conduct” (Moloney, K. (2006); Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy; p. 110).

These two statements support the idea that CSR is “window-dressing”. This means that “wrong” organization’s actions are masked-up by “good” deeds towards people. Pretending to care about the society the company in fact pursues its own ends that may be in variance with society’s interests. Corporations call it CSR and spend their money to please people and to make them unaware of their malicious actions.

Consequently I’m more likely to say that in addition to “window-dressing” activities companies are weakening their ethical grounding and decreasing their truthful social responsibilities. The only way to stop this tendency is to increase the meaning of PR people’s morals and develop the value of individual ethics. And it may be that CSR will regain its credibility if people will trust single PR practitioners whose ethical principles will lead companies’ businesses along the good and moral path benefiting the society.

Social conscience of good business

Good business is all about ethics aligned with the CSR.

Essentially CSR is about how business maximizes the benefits and minimizes the downsides of its operations’ economic, social and environmental impacts.

There are different opinions about CSR. In general they are divided into groups contrasting each other’s views.

Milton Friedman, for instance, argued that companies are being socially responsible in their profit-making, wealth-creation role. The only CSR acceptable, after him, is the one “motivated entirely out of self-interest and justified on those grounds” (L’Etang, J. (2008); Public Relations: Concepts, Practice and Critique; p. 89).

Companies operating at the societal level (contributions towards improving the society, according to Peach) are increasingly obtaining public recognition and visibility for their corporate actions (Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. (2009); Exploring Public Relations; p. 99-103).

CSR acts show organizations’ “human face” and “a caring side” (L’Etang, 2008, p. 191). Wonderful! Now people are aware of your kindness, compassion and helpfulness. However one of the issues here is whether business acts in its own self-interest and those of its stakeholders or in the interests of the larger society.

Russian culture context

Speaking about my native culture, which is Russian by the way, in terms of Hofstede and Hall theories, I can say that Russian culture is a high-context culture. Generally, Russians tend to be indirect in their communications and their understanding of a situation is usually based on a whole host of factors.

To find more about the Russian culture (which is quite true):
http://old.goinglobal.com/hot_topics/russia_jerome_business.asp

To find more on the difference between high- and low-context cultures:
http://crossborderproject07.blogspot.com/2007/10/high-context-vs-low-context.html

There is a nice site for Hofstede's intercultural dimensions theory that also displays world map for each of the dimensions indexing almost every country's score:
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/intercultural/dimensions.html

Geert Hofstede's theory analysis with each country's example page can be found here:
http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/hofstede.htm

Good PR is global or context and culture specific?

Allow me to continue my today's flow of reflection but on a different topic - "Can global and local PR coexist or will the first replace the latter?"

In my opinion global PR can't cope with every task on its own today. I can not predict what will happen in 10-20 years but presumably the situation will improve, however nowadays the knowledge of specific context and culture is essential.

To back up my idea I will refer to the International Public Relations In Practice book edited by Margaret Nally who stresses that: "The successful public relations professional... recognizes that what works in one country does not necessarily work in another: individual countries need individual strategies" (1991, p.117). Failure to recognize and respond to local market conditions can lead to inappropriate work.

Alan Macdonald (ibid, ch. 3) considers a local national to be the "ideal consultant" (ibid, p. 49). Moreover local PR professionals know better which journalists and writers to sell the story to and how to gain editorial coverage and to reach suitable media.

Global PR is vital and transcontinental messages are acceptable, though these are not possible without domestic communications. This makes the saying - "Think globally, act locally" - very appropriate and correct.

PR 2.0 & Authenticity

Good evening, my dear reader!

The book PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences by Deirdre Breakenridge (2008) made me think over the authenticity of PR messages transmitted online.

The author speaks of “viral marketing as the “Word of Mouth” of the Internet”. He also calls it “Astroturfing” on the Internet”, giving the term a Wikipedia explanation - “fake grassroots support online”.

Converting this to PR it means that a lot of information published online can be inaccurate. The reason for that is the increased number of user-generated content articles and self-publishing platforms that enable individuals to expose virtually every “truth” that they want to share. So it is really easy to get lost in all this mass of data and to define which is correct and which is more of a personal users ideas and thoughts.

My premise is that in the world of Web 2.0 the function of PR practitioners has changed. It now requires more skills and duties from them and the ones that I’m talking about in this post are: sharing authentic and transparent information, creating word of mouth and building relationships of trust with communities.

For other new skills follow the link below:
http://www.theharteofmarketing.com/2009/07/pr-20-will-double-your-workload.html

And for more information on importance of authenticity in a virtual world have a look at those articles:
Social media: Being authentic in a virtual world
PR has never been truly authentic

Media War – Secrets of War Propaganda

With your permission I will return to the topic of war propaganda because I have a nice book to recommend to you.

Philip M. Taylor in Simon Cottle’s News, Public Relations and Power (2003, p. 63-79) points out the difference between “real war” and “media war”. He reveals some secrets of war propaganda that aims at gaining public support for government’s policies through “pictures” generation and control. The author brings some factors shaping the reporting of war. He also describes case studies on the Vietnam and Gulf wars.

I found this book great for giving new ideas on how world events are being misreported.

PR & New Media

Good afternoon to everybody!

While thinking through this topic I got curious about "What was first - the egg or the chicken?", or according to named terms: "PR 2.0 or new media?"
Which of the two was the stimulus for the creation of the other? And what were the reasons for that?

I raised these questions due to that every online activity, each message or e-mail are in fact Web self-presentation or, in other words, self-promotion and PR. That gave me the following idea: when PR professionals started to communicate with their clients through e-mails, they might have thought of a need to create a similar online tool that could help them reach masses of people who are not yet their customers. Is it possible that the development of social media was requested or was it the ITs, though, who made up new social media tools for people’s eased interaction?

However when new media appeared people began to subscribe to social networks, create accounts in blogs etc. for free in order to communicate with their friends, to post their thoughts and so forth. All this can happen under one single condition – to make a bit of personal information available to providers of the new services. Consequently these sites get no money from people. The only profit they may receive comes from advertising spaces sales. Their treasure is the information they get from people. These tons of data can be sold to access consumers and to send them tailored messages. On one hand, it is very useful for PR practitioners but, on the other, it is very similar to speculation of personal information without people’s agreement (BUT once more, it is definitely worth it for PR’s messages to be delivered to potential consumers).