In the world of corporate social responsibility, just how responsible are you?

CSR strategies can range from subtle messages through to an entire corporate ethos. Lucinda Wallwork, senior insight analyst at Ebiquity contrasts three different approaches.

In the last few years, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has evolved from a PR exercise to an essential part of the marketing mix.

There are still brands that think signing a fat cheque every year is enough, but most consumers now expect more.

Many brands have matched this expectation and become much more involved – and a number of different approaches to CSR have evolved. A brand may seek to instigate a social or behavioural movement but the level of overt involvement varies from company to company.

Nike, Unilever’s Lifebuoy and Patagonia offer three case studies that highlight the debate about the proper balance between CSR objectives and corporate objectives.

While Nike takes a more altruistic approach, Unilever is clearly benefiting as a business and Patagonia has embedded an ethical approach in everything it does. The key question is: what truly counts as CSR and how can, or should, the brand benefit?

Nike: The Girl Effect

The premise of “The Girl Effect” is that investing in girls in the developing world will help end poverty. Originally launched by Nike’s CSR arm, the Nike Foundation, it appears rooted in genuine altruism.

The sports brand wanted to use its corporate skill and power to get girls on the agenda of the world’s most influential forums.

The two emotive films released via YouTube went viral, achieving more than a million views each. This demonstrated public support and the initiative now has a presence across all major social media platforms and boasts more than 293,000 “girl champions” on Facebook.

However, the Nike swoosh is nowhere to be seen. This was a conscious decision by the Nike Foundation, which didn’t want to damage the campaign by “tainting” it with the brand.

Some marketers will argue that The Girl Effect is therefore a failure for Nike and ask why a company would carry out such activity if it didn’t get the credit for it.

The answer is that the brand was determined to be treated seriously in the socio-political arena, hence why the work had to be entirely separate from corporate objectives.

Having pushed the issue onto the agendas of the Clinton Global Initiative and World Bank, and created regular fundraising events, each generating between $100,000 and $700,000 for the cause, the counter-argument is that The Girl Effect is more than meeting the goals set by Nike.

Lifebuoy soap: a global social mission

Unilever has been using its Lifebuoy brand as a vehicle to spread a message of health and hygiene in developing countries.

Education programmes across India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Vietnam aim to halve the number of deaths caused by diarrhoea and reduce by a quarter those caused by respiratory illness.

The core message is that washing hands with soap at various stages during the daily routine will kill germs and bacteria.

So far the education programme has reached 70 million people, but Unilever also runs advertising which emphasises the importance of hand washing and the effectiveness of Lifebuoy in particular.

The key question is: does this count as CSR, or is it simply an attempt to drive sales? Since the programme started, Lifebuoy has become market leader in every developing country in which it operates, illustrating the financial benefits for the brand.

What is undisputed is that the brand is making a positive difference. Clinical trials in India reported that among those who had received Unilever’s health training, there was a 19% reduction in acute respiratory infections, a drop of 46% in eye infections and a 25% fall in the incidence of diarrhoea among those under five years old.

The brand has also donated hundreds of thousands of soap bars to areas hit by crises in order to stem the effects of poor sanitation following earthquakes and tsunamis.

It’s not purely altruistic, but Unilever has created a model that benefits the well-being of local consumers and enhances its own profits.

Patagonia

At the most extreme end of the CSR scale are the companies that build strong morals, ethics and sustainability into the very fibre of their brands. Patagonia, the specialist mountain wear retailer, is one.

Set up and still run by surfing and climbing enthusiast Yvon Chouinard, Patagonia is as responsible as companies come. In addition to funding many environmental initiatives and giving 1% of all profits to sustainability projects, the brand is slowly trying to change the whole textile industry.

It is completely transparent in its efforts to create better working conditions and fairer pay for its factory employees in Asia, hoping that other textile brands will follow suit.

The most prominent expression of its aim is the Common Threads initiative, which is represented as a promise from both Patagonia and its customers to reduce, repair, reuse, recycle and re-imagine (a sustainable world).

The brand even released global print ads in 2011 stating “don’t buy this jacket”, which encouraged customers to:

a) Make do with what they already have

b) Get Patagonia to repair their clothes

c) Sell or buy used Patagonia clothes on its dedicated eBay page

d) Send worn-out Patagonia clothes back to the brand to be recycled into new clothes.

Such ethical practices have only increased love for the Patagonia brand. So although it is encouraging people to make do with what they have, when they do need something new, Patagonia is the first port of call. For this company in particular, CSR makes good business sense.