It would appear that my previous post on the language of CR and sustainability was very serendipitous in its timing.
Right on cue, the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) has launched a new blog covering this area of practice, complete with its own particular take on the terminology of choice to describe it: Social Responsibility, or SR. (As if the waters could be muddied any further!)
According to their logic, it’s the “C” of “CSR” that’s the problem (more so than the “S”), in that it suggests an exclusive focus on corporations, rather than including the remit of governments, NGOs and other non-business enterprises.
I can see the point although, frankly, it is business that has by far the biggest role to play. It’s business that’s the engine of growth and it’s business that will scupper us if we don’t start doing it more sustainably. Even if you accept the point, the issues already highlighted with “social responsibility” mean it’s probably just further evidence in support of the case for “sustainability”.
By now, I imagine your patience is probably wearing thin with all this terminology guff. However, if you can bear it, it’s worth checking out the comments thread on this particular topic (complete with a couple of further contributions to the debate from yours truly).