Collaborate or Compete? When it Comes to Corporate Responsibility, How about Both
By Tim Mohin, Director of Corporate Responsibility, Advanced Micro Devices
We would all like to think that companies collaborate on social responsibility—after all, combining the resources of corporations can increase the impact they can have on social issues. And for the most part, they do. But, let’s not sugarcoat this, companies use their corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts as a source of competitive advantage. And, as CSR rises in importance, the competition over being responsible is heating up.
As the former chairman of the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC), I have seen CSR collaboration and competition first hand and both can be beneficial. A great example is the hot topic of “conflict minerals”—the sourcing of minerals that may have funded warring militias that commit human rights abuses. Companies have a strong incentive to collaborate to eliminate conflict minerals from their supply chains, because it not only helps them comply with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s conflict minerals disclosure rule, but also to protect their reputations by distancing their products or brand from these egregious conflicts. It is the effort to capitalize on this reputational benefit that drives companies to subsequently engage in competitive behavior.
Collaboration on conflict minerals
With a problem as large as conflict minerals, collaboration is really the only effective way to break the link between conflict and the minerals trade. Not only can companies pool resources to create the process, but their combined buying power can help focus the market toward supplying the well-funded demand for conflict-free sourcing.
Part of the EICC, the Conflict Free Sourcing Initiative (CFSI) offers a collaborative approach for companies to track the minerals in their products to producers that are certified as “conflict-free.” This is something that few—if any—companies could do independently, and even if they could, it would be far more costly than the collaborative approach.
Competing on conflict minerals
Companies rely on the CFSI process to fulfil conflict minerals disclosure obligations, but some then seek to magnify business benefits by pursuing leadership positions. Recent examples include Apple and Intel, both of which went beyond the SEC’s disclosure obligations that CFSI information helps with, and did additional work to rid their supply chains of conflict minerals.
Such competitiveness doesn’t necessarily mean companies are undertaking social responsibilities just for a good branding opportunity—it can actually serve to enhance the effectiveness of the collaborative process and the impact on social issues. Consider the fact that companies that engage in competitive behavior in pursuit of a leadership role set an example for others, ultimately helping to accelerate progress. And the circle is complete when leading companies share their information from their leadership efforts to improve the collaborative process.
Other examples of this collaborate-compete paradigm exist across the CSR industry, demonstrating that both approaches can be advantageous to social responsibility.
About the author:
Tim Mohin
Director of Corporate Responsibility
Advanced Micro Devices
Tim Mohin is Senior Director of Corporate Responsibility for Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and the author of the book, Changing Business from the Inside Out: A Treehugger’s Guide to Working in Corporations (Greenleaf and Berrett-Kohler). His postings (and comments made in his book) are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites, and references to third-party trademarks, are provided for convenience and illustrative purposes only. Unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such links, and no third party endorsement of AMD or any of its products is implied. Follow Tim @TimJMohin and check out AMD’s latest Corporate Responsibility Report.
