Putting responsibility into CSR should be an expectation

When you define exactly what corporate responsibility entails a certain piece of the expectation must align itself with preparation and studies specific to the industry concerned. While I wanted to write about a new study released by the Pew Environment Group today, the implications of integrating focused studies about any specific industry should truly be a corporate expectation when undertaking new projects that have not been tried before under certain circumstances. Specifically the report speaks to the concerns of oil drilling in the Arctic but the message is the same, corporations must perform feasibility and safety assessments before launching into product development or sourcing of raw materials and therefore the potential impact upon habitat.

2010 has already provided the clearest example of the risks inherent in an industry as volatile as the oil industry with the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, while it remains to be seen whether BP and the industry as a whole have learned the appropriate lessons from this catastrophe, the underlining perception remains that corporate responsibility was spoken of with due diligence but the actuality may have been very different. In terms of CSR, according to findings by https://www.hagstromdrilling.com.au, the scenario does not just apply to offshore oil drilling of course, but to many facets of different industries and the impact upon the environment and of course economic realities when fair trade laws for example are heeded or ignored. As most corporations operate both in real-time but also manage mid and long-term strategies, the cohesion between using valuable reports that have already been published or commissioning new ones should be an expectation not just a hope.

The Pew study focuses on Arctic oil exploration and oil recovery which is seen by many in the industry as the new frontier of untouched resources and a partial solution to increasing oil reserves for a global population that continues to increase demand. The report itself is a lengthy 147 page analysis that looks at the current day in terms of understanding and anticipating what an oil spill scenario could mean to the ecology of this frozen region. After scanning the report you may feel like I did,  in that we are probably many years away from being in a position to further explore this potential resource with any great confidence that a potential disaster could be managed effectively. The underlying challenges and consequences of a similar event to what happened in the Gulf of Mexico occurring in these frozen waters are as different as they are broad, yet as I read them I wonder if the oil industry would practice solving such a situation on-the-fly or if the necessary reporting and preparation will be completed before large-scale drilling is taking place.

The third word of CSR is of course ‘responsibility’ and taking necessary precautions and preparing for scenarios that obviously in the case of the oil industry are not that far-fetched should surely be a baseline expectation from the public and shareholders alike. Conversely the inherent fear of too much regulation from governments and watchdogs seems to be a constant rebuttal, but without a further expansion upon corporate responsibility it may just turn out to be the only real solution. The oil industry provides a visible working example of how best to manage future resource harvesting but it can apply just as readily to food, paper, farming, manufacturing or essentially any corporation that provides goods or employs many in the production of those goods.

The timing of the Pew report could not be more valuable as exploratory drilling around Alaska would have started as early as July of this year, however events related BP have caused permits to be revoked but only for a short time it’s almost certain. Please follow this link to read the entire “Oil Spill Prevention and Response in the US Arctic Ocean” report compiled by the Pew Environment Group.