????但比較1973年和現(xiàn)在的企業(yè)社會責任做法，最大的不同在于，現(xiàn)在的公司探究這個問題時往往會超越公關(guān)層面，尋找那些最具商業(yè)意義的活動。公關(guān)效益當然是件好事，但這往往不是唯一目的。

????柯博瑞舉了個例子，即Levi Strauss形形色色旨在降低生產(chǎn)用水和能耗的環(huán)保計劃。它們一方面或許能幫助這個星球，一方面也會降低成本，在競爭激烈的服裝行業(yè)提升利潤。

????接下來是如何管理風險的問題?？虏┤鹫f：“1995年我們制訂供應(yīng)商水質(zhì)指引時，很多公司，包括我們的供應(yīng)商們，都質(zhì)疑為什么他們得投資建設(shè)水處理設(shè)施。”但“今天，水已成為這個行業(yè)中的重要問題。”在有些國家，比如中國，政府已經(jīng)開始關(guān)閉那些沒有采取適當水處理措施的工廠。我們在倡導這些指引時，不僅改善了環(huán)境，也改善了業(yè)務(wù)?！?/p>

????這個注重商業(yè)效益的案例幫助當代企業(yè)社會責任擺脫了伯克所擔心的社會運動形式。1973年的伯克文章還記錄了商業(yè)保險公司CNA Financial Corp.編撰的《企業(yè)社會責任細則》：詳細介紹了can的建議，怎樣才能讓所有高管都參與到社會目標中來，進而讓下屬也參與進來。整個手冊有點福音書的意味，似乎要展開一場全面的除惡戰(zhàn)爭。但是，這一切要花多少錢，誰來為此買單，這些問題似乎沒人談起，”伯克寫道。

????CNA公司企業(yè)傳訊部副總裁薩拉?龐表示，四十年前的CSR“非常強調(diào)從上至下，采用的是指揮和掌控的形式。”幾十年來最大的演變是“底層員工開始參與進來，共同形成和推動企業(yè)責任和策略。”CNA公司的員工可以在公司有業(yè)務(wù)運營的各個社區(qū)自行選擇慈善和義工項目，然后，CAN公司再給予相應(yīng)的支持。

????為什么要這么做？分析顯示，本地慈善可以為投入的每一分錢帶來更大效應(yīng)。龐說：“根據(jù)雙盲研究，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在美國、加拿大和歐洲的社區(qū)中，購買保險的決勝局競爭中，積極參與社區(qū)活動的企業(yè)會勝出?！本栀浐土x工服務(wù)讓CNA的名字以一種更有效、更深入的方式出現(xiàn)在公眾面前，而且成本往往還低于某些廣告。

????或者，正如伯克在1973年所述，“那些內(nèi)心是不折不扣的建設(shè)者、那些對萬能金錢擁有強烈渴望的企業(yè)高管們或許仍然會得出結(jié)論，積極承擔社會責任的形象符合公司利益?！彼弥Z貝爾獎經(jīng)濟學家保羅?薩繆爾森的話，在真實世界里，一家大公司“不只是可能會參與社會責任；它最好努力做好這件事?！保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng)）

????The biggest difference, though, between the 1973 approach to CSR and today's is that companies delving into this issue tend to wind up looking beyond PR to activities that make the most business sense. The PR benefit is a plus, of course, but that tends not to be the only one.

????Kobori, for instance, lists Levi Strauss's various environmental initiatives aimed at using less water and energy during production. While that may help the planet, it also lowers costs, which boosts profits in the competitive apparel industry.

????And then there's the question of managing risk. Kobori says, "When we established our supplier water quality guidelines in 1995, many, including our suppliers, questioned why they needed to invest in building water treatment facilities." But, "today, water is a significant issue across the industry. In countries like China, the government is moving to shut down factories that do not have proper water treatment. In initiating these guidelines, we not only improved outcomes for the environment, we also improved outcomes for our business."

????This focus on the business case has helped modern CSR initiatives evolve from the crusading sorts Burck fretted about. The 1973 article chronicled CNA Financial Corp.'s production of "an elaborate manual on corporate responsibility -- a document that details just how CNA proposes to involve all its executives in social goals, and how they in turn should involve their charges. The whole opus has a somewhat evangelical tone, suggesting the marching orders for an all-out war on the devil. What it all will cost and who will pay for it are matters nobody seems to talk about," Burck wrote.

????Sarah Pang, vice president of CNA's corporate communications department, says that 40 years ago CSR "was a very top-down, command-and-control kind of exercise." The biggest evolution over the decades has been "employee involvement at the grassroots level to shape and drive corporate responsibility and strategies." CNA employees in each community where the company does business can choose priorities for giving and volunteering, which CNA then supports.

????The reason? Analysis suggested that local giving produced more bang for the buck. "In blind studies, we would find that in communities throughout the U.S., Canada, and Europe, when it comes to a tie-breaker about buying insurance, people who are involved in the community win the tie," Pang says. Donations and volunteering get the CNA name out in front of the public in a way that's more effective, and often cheaper, than some kinds of advertising.

????Or, as Burck put it in 1973, "Corporate executives who are strict constructionists at heart, and who harbor powerful lusts for Almighty Dollars, might nevertheless conclude that an activist social posture was good for their companies." He quoted Paul Samuelson, the Nobel laureate economist, who said that in the real world, a large corporation "not only may engage in social responsibility; it had damn well better try to do so."