CSR – The Corporate Blacklist is published for the first time

There are always dozens of examples of companies who provide a shining example of how to develop a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program which embraces the fundamental goals of providing a better working environment, using ethical suppliers, supporting the community and being conscious of the the environment. While we seek out and applaud businesses that are taking proper steps its even better when we have a sense of comparison when making decisions in purchasing or partnering with another company. While every business is thrilled to appear on a list that contains the adjectives ‘best’, ‘top’ or ‘leading’ there is the other end of the spectrum to consider and before now it had not been published. Now that has all changed as Corporate Social Responsibility magazine are publishing the inverse study of their renowned study of leading performers in terms of CSR, they have just released a list the companies that score lowest when it comes to CSR using the same criteria as the ‘good news’ poll. This is a list that no company will want to be on, as awareness of this information could certainly change the decision of a potential customer. That said I’m a glass is half full person, I think it tells companies who appear on the list they need to get their house in order to better society and also to remain competitive.

I will add a caveat to some of the details reported in the list, data was collected under the same terms as the information that created the list of companies with the best scores. In some cases a lack of disclosure did impact scores, even for the most simple of questions concerning employee benefits – it would make some wonder just what they are hiding. The seven criteria that are evaluated for the survey are as follows: Environment, Climate Change, Human Rights, Employee Relations, Finance, Governance and Philanthropy. In most cases replies for companies who made the ‘black list’ were incomplete, inconclusive or simply unanswered. The safest presumption I can make from the companies who scored poorly is they either don’t realise that failing to enact a CSR policy will leave them years behind the curve, or that the very concept of acting with transparency is not appreciated or perhaps understood.

The main reason however that I think the list should be published and shared is that all companies are different. The defining ethics and practices do tell you a lot about the organization you are considering working with or purchasing from. If a company doesn’t place stock in the community in which the live and work or for the people they employ or are supplied by, do you you think they place much stock in you? Profit does matter – businesses aren’t operating for the sense of fun, but balancing that triple bottom line of people, planet and profit is not only possible but it is worthwhile. I won’t name names but you can review the list at www.thecro.com, the source website, hopefully next year the names will change and the list will be shorter. Incidentally, the thirty companies on the list share values dropped 7% in the last year while the top of the list gained 2%. Who said nice guys finish last?