Picture: Josh [unemployed IT dude] at Flickr

In the past few weeks, the ongoing debate around Google vs. China censorship row has dominated the media, with Hillary Clinton’s speech on the need to protect basic freedoms on the internet an essential read.

While on a personal level many may applaud the decision Google has taken in leading the cyber charge against the abuse of civil liberties, I’m particularly interested in what this means for the future of CSR.

As Tom Watson recently highlighted on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the activities of other brands operating in China should now be under scrutiny – which begs the question how do they sit within a wider CSR policy back home?

Choosing a programme of CSR isn’t enough – if you’re not ‘being good’ then ‘doing good’ can mean very little.

As I’ve highlighted before, the financial sector has a more tarnished reputation than most as questions around trust and corporate responsibility (or rather irresponsibility) have impacted greatly on consumer and corporate relations. Just a couple of days ago Lord Myners called on fund managers to re-examine their corporate pay culture as “public attention will focus on the decisions that boards make about bonuses” according to the FT.

The consequences flowing from the banking crisis, State ownership of high street banks, MPs expense scandals, and the pervasive bonus culture among senior management in Britain has demonstrated a powerful schism between the social – in all our interests – and the anti-social – in individual interests. Financial institutions need to be acting as ‘corporate citizens’; it’s not enough to be responsible just to shareholders, but responsible to society as a whole.

I believe that the shift away from the dominance of traditional press is significant. With the rise of the internet and social media, now everyone is a media outlet. As such ‘boundaries’ – whether state, corporate or press vs. public – no longer exist, and the power comes from ‘us’, the people that Google and corporates seek to serve and create goodwill with.

As Henry Jenkins says in his fascinating video on the power of media in a 21st century transmediated world (full link here):

“… A new media system is being born… Spectatorial culture is giving way to participatory culture…

“A society based on a small number of companies controlling the storytelling apparatus is giving way to a much more complex mediascape where average citizens have the ability to seize control over media technologies and tell their own stories in powerful new ways…

“ As average people develop the ability to tell their stories, we are seeing different perspectives emerge.”

Thanks to the power of social media, consumers can, will, and do shout from the rooftops (or their laptops) about any wrong-doing or socially irresponsible behaviour, wherever in the world it may be.

A recent report found that just 21% of people in the UK trust banks to ‘do’ what is right -with trust also named as the key driver of corporate reputation (72%) followed by transparent and honest business practices.

Now, perhaps more than ever, those trying to be seen to ‘do’ good – or using CSR as a get-out-of-jail free card – will be found out. BBC business editor Robert Peston said (see his full blog post here):

“I have it from impeccable sources that several of them [banks] have rung up their mates and contacts in 10 Downing Street, the Treasury and BIS, to ask if they can be let off the 50% one-off bonus tax… In return they would make a one-off contribution to some worthy project or other…“

If you’re not demonstrating responsibility, you’re ultimately irresponsible.

The question now is – if you don’t believe in CSR or don’t really mean it, then should you be doing it?

Books like Herd: How to Change Mass Behaviour by Harnessing Our True Nature by Mark Earls and Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein both allude to this emerging spirit of mass collectivism and changeable mass consumer behaviour and, importantly for PR people, the influence of ‘other people’ or single simple steps on the behaviour of groups of individuals. (One example would be the emergence of floral shrines which have become a common sight in the last 20 years – spontaneous public and group actions of grief and remembrance that aren’t organised, rather organically grow as someone starts the tribute and others follow.)

Ultimately we are a social species and will coalesce around what is right, which is why corporate social responsibility and charitable partnerships – corporates ‘being’ as well as ‘doing good’ – has such a strong pull with the public.

Even amidst the credit crunch and consumer concern over finances, Red Nose Day raised an eye-watering £57 million this year, beating the record set by the previous campaign in 2007 by £17.5 million. Indeed Sainsbury’s revealed earlier this year that its partnership with Comic Relief – a good example of how both sides can benefit from a corporate/charitable relationship – helped contribute to a 0.3% rise in turnover in the first quarter of 2009.

With this in mind, corporate decisions need to fully consider consumer views and sentiment, as how companies conduct their business, both internally and externally, are under increasing scrutiny and traditional models of behaviour are being challenged. With the huge growth in online petitions, Facebook groups (think Busts 4 Justice which garnered 11,000 online supporters in its successful battle with M&S over its bra surcharge), consumer action and more and more people talking online, consumers can, and do, make a lot of noise about a company and any wrong-doings.