Gabriel Ortiz de Zevallos
General Manager APOYO Comunicación Corporativa
As occurs with all "politically correct" terms, the connotations of "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) are varied, wide-ranging and insufficiently outlined regarding what is and what is not politically correct. As it is a concept that is still evolving, part of the blur around the edges of the definition will remain for a while. As its conceptual development is taking place in markets that have different structures from those found in Peru (or similar), the most modern concepts and methods at the international level must be adapted with criteria for the particular case found in Peru.
Not one, but many CSR
Depending on the source (Peter Drucker, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Business for Social Responsibility, Ethos, Peru 2021, etc.), there are several definitions of CSR that emphasize different aspects or introduce different nuances; and there are certainly implicit connotations that are not noticeable at first, but they exist and imply significant differences for a company. The concept and traditional CSR practices have been, here as well as abroad, closely linked to diverse support programs for communities where companies operate or society in general, which are financed or carried out directly by many companies. However, the most modern concept of CSR encompasses other interest groups (stakeholders) regarding the company: clients (truthful, responsible advertising and complete, easily accessible information); workers (working conditions, labor rights, programs for their families, etc.); government (anticorruption policies, truthful reports, etc.); shareholders (corporate government); environment, communities, the media, etc. In this case, CSR policies encompass the entire spectrum of a company’s policies (marketing, human resources, production, administration, finance, etc.).
This more global model emerged in developed countries (in Europe and North America, mainly) because in these markets there is no frontal questioning of companies (as there is in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and some regions of Peru), but rather concerns about environmental and labor issues, responsible advertising, transparent financial management, etc. In plain English: nobody questions wanting to make a profit, but rather methods of making a profit. In that institutional setting, in which no important stakeholder questions the business model, and in which the press and political debate are much more informed and rigorous, the approach to CSR turns toward the diversity of a company’s stakeholders; very transparent communication mechanisms are established on economic, environmental and social fronts, and priority is given to tools such as social assessments (ideally, according to the standards of the Global Initiative Report – GIR) and stakeholder involvement processes (such as those established for AA1000 certification). How many persons read, believe and decide on their actions regarding a company based on its sustainability report in Peru?
Ways of gaining legitimacy in a country that still has adolescent characteristics are not the same as those that are applicable in more mature countries. Social assessments and certifications may still be necessary in order for a company to present itself as responsible externally (which will be increasingly relevant); in fact, part of the conceptual development regarding relating with stakeholders is valuable, but it must be customized for each specific case.
Customized CSR
In the most locally-oriented conceptual discussions about CSR, emphasis has been placed on business persons and businesses as potential catalysts in the development of the country, even completely outside the sphere of its activity. If one analyzes (i) the living conditions of a large part of the Peruvian population; (ii) the management deficiencies of the Peruvian State, at its different levels; (iii) the populist or nationalist tradition that exists in ample sectors of the Peruvian population; and (iv) the fact that the human capital available in the national territory is highly concentrated in companies, more than in any other social actor (weakness of political parties, universities, etc.), it is easy to reach the conclusion that the sustainable development of a company in Peru depends on companies and/or industry groups contributing to the country as a whole according to their possibilities, because on the contrary, conditions for doing business can become complicated for all of them, which almost occurred.
The practice of CSR in Peru has often been marked by a large number of diverse, well-intentioned projects, some well carried out, but frequently they are isolated, unsustainable or not sufficiently related to the fundamental development priorities of the country.
Doing business in Peru is not only not easy; it does not yet have the necessary legitimacy. Making a profit and attaining success are not seen as stimuli of inclusive development, but rather they are still associated with power, abuse and exclusion. In a setting with that anti-enterprise ideology, commitment to the least fortunate acquires more significance.
In summary: the most modern CSR methodologies, certifications and approaches that involve nearly every company and its stakeholders can be useful (even necessary, depending on the specific case), but at present they are not the way to gain legitimacy for a company; and the legitimacy to be gained is not only for each particular company, but rather for the model in general. Effort is required in order to improve the quality and articulation of the projects supported, as well as more effective communication so that they yield better, more visible results.
|