Basic Standards for Laggard Companies

The Ethical Corporation has a comment on laggard companies to which I would like to add my own. The focus of much CSR commentary and debate is over the leaders, who are carving out and paying for new levels of compliance with higher standards of environmental care, workplace quality, fair trade or the reporting thereon.

Activist groups tend to focus on the leading brands because the media are more interested. If you have a problem with "blood diamonds, for example, go after the leading jewelry companies. This is common sense, because the best-known brands make better headlines.

However, there is a danger in the focus remaining solely on the top brands' raising their standards or their level of enforcement even higher to respond to activists' publicity about conditions in subcontractors' facilities.

The danger is that for the bulk of the industry, there is no pressure to improve conditions.

That is why I believe there should be at least two levels of CSR performance - one to be applied to any company in the industry and a higher standard for companies that wish to be leaders.

This is the approach being taken by the Council for Responsible Jewellery Practices, which is putting pressure on companies throughout the industry ("from mining to retail") to adhere to minimum standards, while some companies are seeking to comply with higher standards in the environmental or workplace areas.

The debate has gone on too long about whether standards should be higher or lower. It seems to me that both ends of the spectrum deserve attention: (1) High-end multi-stakeholder CSR standards, with rigorous monitoring and full reporting, and (2) Basic standards enforced on the "laggards" by each industry, because it's right and because if the industry is not careful the laggards could have a major negative effect on the industry.

The scary poster for encouraging industry-wide initiatives is what happened to the fur industry.