Confused, yes; stupid, not.

Unfortunately, corporate reputation is managed more on the basis of public relations than on the basis of responsible practices. Within this context, some suggest that the name Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is outdated and should be changed by that of Sustainability. Is it possible to change its nature by changing its name?An article was recently published (in Diario Responsable) under the title It’s Sustainability, Stupid!, which claimed that the name “corporate social responsibility” was counterproductive for the promotion of responsible practices, and suggested that it be changed for that of “sustainability”.

Certainly, a name influences perceptions. In fact, for those who do not read further than the headline or name, this happens frequently. But I do not believe this is the case of responsible practices.

If the problem is that corporations do not have responsible practices in place, or are geared to perception manipulation, I do not believe that, by calling them “Sustainability”, the problem will be fixed. Both have the same perception problem. “Sustainability” might be worse, because it is not descriptive.

It is true that CSR does not provide a great description of what is involved either, but much progress has been made in its understanding. Some time ago, I said that many names would be created for responsible practices, not out of necessity but because people get tired of names and it appears as if innovation is achieved by changing the name.

I have no doubt that, eventually, the name “Sustainability” will be the preferred one, before it is replaced by some other name.

The issue, however, is whether a name change will do, or we need to do something different. The “solution” some suggest is based on the claim that the concept of CSR has worn out; hence the need to think in terms of sustainability. Yet, this is not a semantic problem; if the problem does not have to do with semantics, then the solution does not lie in a name change.

The problem is the entrepreneurs’ attitude, who fail to, or cannot see, that the CSR or sustainability strategy may improve their competitiveness, if not now, in the medium or long run. You can fool many people for some time, yet not everyone all the time. Sooner or later, they will be unmasked. Unfortunately, reputation is managed more on the basis of public relations than on responsible practices. The solution is that executives have to experience the right incentives through regulation, market pressures, the benefits from responsible practices, etc. Are we going to change their attitude if we call it “sustainability”?

The problem is that consumers are not aware of what responsible businesses or products are, even if they wanted to know about it. Will they know if we call it “sustainability””?

They do hear, however, about philanthropy or social actions, because those are part of a corporation’s information strategies in their reputation “management”. And it is easier than implementing responsible practices. The problem lies in corporations and consumers’ ignorance or confusion.

For its part, civil society and the media do not help much. The media are unaware, do not cooperate, or cannot cooperate out of ignorance. A survey in Spain showed that 15% of the journalists interviewed believe that the media for which they work covers news about CSR properly or correctly, and 74% of them associate CSR with altruism (Servimedia y Estudio de Comunicación, July 2009 [servimedia.es/PeriodismoSocialMedios.pdf->servimedia.es/PeriodismoSocialMedios.pdf]). Will we change that attitude and perception by calling it “sustainability”?

Confused, YES!, and very much indeed. Stupid?, NO!