Is the destruction of CSR inevitable? Let us try to draw a balance sheet on what exists in the current debate and to propose a hygienism by the act of dislocation.
In a context where CSR is omnipresent, without equivalence, bringing people closer to themselves, it has become in recent years the new cornucopia of companies and thinkers. From now on, any choice must include this notion, in other words, the individual projected into the collective of the company has a sword of Damocles in each of his decisions which must be greeted with ethics. With this in mind, companies establish “greenways”, ie roadmaps with ethical commitments, communicating extensively on them, monitored by the regulator.
Also, newly created activist associations push its subjects by analyzing a lot of data to influence large companies in their decisions and do not hesitate to use more dissuasive means to denounce, to crack down. A game of ping-pong is then established in the public space between companies and activists to find out who will hold the truth. Thus, CSR caught in this storm sees its brilliance declining, victim of censorship and euphemization strategies. If CSR continues along this line, its end is only inevitable: the time for condemnation has passed, the time for support has come.
Historically, CSR draws a set of movements such as feminization or the ecological aspect which had a low media space taken separately. It is the merger, that is to say the aggregation of all the commitments, which has made it possible to gain visibility in each area. Due to the strong energy that emerges from each of its “sub-themes”, the time has come to regenerate this movement by distinguishing the different branches to become true “themes”.
In other words, to allow the renewal of the current CSR, the purpose lies in its dissolution within the triptych: Ecology, Social and Governance (ESG). There is of course a clear correlation between these three terms, but ESG is now far too important to treat these subjects on the same footing. In this perspective, ESG offers a diversity of fields, each of which must have its own unique defence. This destruction will allow the creation of specialized trades, a clarification of the fights, a better autonomy of the actions, a healthier allocated energy. In short, it is a real hygiene that is proposed here, to perfect the fights of tomorrow.
For example, groping finance has already taken this path but does not go far enough in the construction of the three different axes, i.e. by not allowing ESG to be dissolved, but preferring to speak of a whole. To make it possible to separate the ESG, a proposal would consist in prioritizing the terms which compose it by allocating different means according to the subjects. For example, it may be wiser to allocate more financial resources to ecology and more human resources to feminization. To go further in this hierarchy, even if all the themes are essential for our future, certain subjects such as the reduction of wage inequalities or even feminization must be treated to an extent that does not disavow means for ecology, a central pillar for human survival.