A few days ago I was contacted by Rachelle Lacroix at Fleishman-Hillard about their new survey on CSR. You know how they say, "the squeeky wheel gets the grease"? It's all too true when it comes to corporate social responsibility!

Friday I got to speak with Tony, the team leader for the FH CSR blog. Tony led the yearlong development of the survey and has a background in CSR and public affairs. Here's a little bit of what he had to say about their survey.

I think that Milton Friedman's belief expressed nearly 40 years ago that the only social responsibility commitment a business has to society is to increase its profits--has been totally refuted by the American public. Our survey found that an overwhelming majority of Americans expect companies to be active in helping to solve social issues; rate companies' performance in this area as poor; and, now seem willing to have government intervene to help realign corporate priorities. - Tony Calandro

Of course I drilled him on Fleishman-Hillard's social responsibility and bias, and I can confidently state that you can take the survey for what it is - factual statistics. The survey is not for profit in any way - nobody commissioned them, it is not for sale, and they do not give soft money contributions.

Read more of the fascinating interview with Tony Calandro by reading the extended entry at the link below. I'm really looking forward to teaming up with the Fleishman-Hillard CSR blog on making CSR more visible. Thank you for this opportunity Tony!

It seems most people are mostly concerned with government action in the pharmaceutical, chemical, and food industries - but how much of a factor do you think CSR will actually be in the minds of voters when they're filling out their ballots?

We believe that the backdrop against the last election was a pent up and growing frustration Americans have with corporate America. Over the past several years, average Americans have seen a continual drumbeat of corporate greed and excess. No doubt the election was about the direction of the Iraq War, but we also think that underneath this is a belief that many domestic issues have been neglected due to the high cost of the war--couple that with corporate greed/excess and increased costs to Americans on "pocketbook" issues--leads us to believe that Americans are now more inclined to have some outside/external force help them realign corporate priorities with their own.

What's interesting to note in these findings from a political perspective is the fact that in all 13 industries, Democrats were more inclined than Republicans and Independents to favor more government oversight/involvement in all of those industries. If Democrats add to their majorities next year--I personally think we will see more government intervention in a broad array of industries.

Was CSR a prominent issue to your participants, larger than say civil unions?

I dont think Americans went to the ballot box thinking "CSR." As our survey suggests, Americans define "CSR" in different ways--ways that are most relevant to them. I think they went to the ballot box unhappy with the direction of the country, companies and government. I think their vote was an expression of that pent up frustration and a signal to realign priorities, including corporate.

What shocked you, personally, the most about the results of the survey?

Three things really were eye openers for me:

1. Nearly two thirds of people who identify themselves as Republicans believe it is either "very" or "extremely" important for government to ensure companies address social issues--I would never have thought such a strong feeling would exist within nearly two thirds of Republicans!

2. In order for businesses to protect their reputation--increasingly they will have to be visible online and in places like MySpace and YouTube--where they can't control their message. That really intrigues me--Fortune 500 companies spend millions of dollars each year trying to control/shape their message/image of their company. Sooner rather than later--they will have to protect/promote their image on social networks--where they have no control. That really fascinates me.

3. Charitable donations rank so low in order of priority for average Americans. This finding was consistent again this year. This year we probed a bit and found that nearly three times as many respondents prefer a company's "nonfinancial" contributions to a "financial" contribution. It is as if they are saying that charitable donations by themselves are no longer enough. Our survey found that Americans are looking for three types of donations from a company today--time, expertise and money.

Who approached Fleishman-Hillard and National Consumers League about conducting the survey - commissioned or not, whose interests are being served?

FH and NCL commissioned the survey--our second year of doing it. I've known Linda Golodner, president of the NCL, for many years, and when I started with FH, we wondered if there were colloaborative opportunities to explore, which is how the survey came to be. We both have a passion for this issue, and Linda is very involved with CSR both domestically and internationally for the NCL.

What do you expect to do with this survey?

Well, there is a lot of good CSR info out in the public domain. We think our findings are significant and also adds to the collective body of information--so we will want to actively publicize the findings and hope to begin a national dialogue on the findings leading up to the next elections.

What kind of financial benefits would Fleishman-Hillard or National Consumers League receive for doing this survey?

Neither party would receive financial benefits from this survey. Our company could benefit from the survey if companies would like to use us to act on any of the findings.