The press release of the associations Emmaüs France, Emmaüs International and the Abbé Pierre Foundation on July 17, 2024 caused shock amongst the public. It was announced that an independent report had been published by the Egaé group, an organization specializing in gender equality, workplace discrimination and violence. Investigation revealed the dark side of the man who had long been considered “France’s most beloved figure.”

Henry Grouès (1912-2007), higher generally known as Abbé Pierre and founder of Emmaüs – a world charity founded in France in 1949 – he allegedly sexually assaulted multiple women from the Fifties to the 2000s. These findings have had a profound impact on the constellation of groups related to Father Pierre and Emmaüs, revealing the challenges a corporation faces in leveraging a historical figure as a symbolic and strategic resource while concurrently attempting to distance itself from such a figure.

Abbé Pierre: A key symbolic resource

In 2018 we published article about how organizations use history as a strategic resource, specializing in the case of Emmaüs, which from the very starting has been closely linked to the personality of Abbé Pierre. The life of this priest, the history of the founding of Emmaüs, and the various symbolic elements related to Father Pierre’s image, equivalent to his clothing and public persona, supported the organization even after his death. Until early September, the logo and name of the Abbé Pierre Foundation, the fundamental part of Emmaüs, demonstrated this connection.

Strategic historical resources are each assets of organizational legitimacy and a battleground for power. Unlike tangible or financial assets, they’re shaped by each internal and external aspects, making it difficult for a corporation to totally control them. The public and legendary elements of historic resources make it difficult to denationalise or monopolize: Abbé Pierre essentially belongs to everyone.

Building and controlling narratives based on historical resources

Based on these observations, we provide insights into the strategic use of historic resources. Our model considers 4 dimensions to handle the challenges of strategic historic resources: appropriation, ownership, retention, and distancing.

Appropriation involves organizing scattered elements to create a coherent, easy historical narrative. For Emmaüs, this includes frequent use Abbé Pierre’s 1954 winter appeal and its image to strengthen the organization’s identity and mission. Emmaüs also faced challenges in controlling the use of Abbé Pierre’s image, well known in France as a public good. The organization needed to implement mechanisms equivalent to mental property rights to guard this resource. Conservation means preserving, enhancing and transmitting over time the characteristics and values ​​related to a historic resource. For Emmaüs, this meant maintaining the values ​​promoted by Abbé Pierre, even after his death, as a way to strengthen internal cohesion. Finally, distancing is about knowing when to maneuver away from a historical resource to avoid idolatry and organizational rigidity (and, on this case, accountability). In the past, Emmaüs needed to distance itself from Abbé Pierre to permit for organizational evolution while still recognizing his historical contributions.

Moving away from a historic resource

In the context of our archival evaluation, we now have already observed that since the Fifties, the organization or some of its stakeholders have made several attempts to distance themselves from the historical resource represented by Abbé Pierre. Although we now have not identified the sexual assault allegations mentioned in the Egaé report, several sources have indicated that Abbé Pierre can have did not keep the vows of chastity associated together with his ecclesiastical status as early as the Fifties. The challenge of distancing itself from Abbé Pierre for the Emmaüs constellation was not merely a matter of repute, as this organization, non-religious and financially independent, was relatively detached from the Catholic Church and its hierarchy.

Rather, the fundamental problem was controlling a person who was proof against managing structures and following rules. Moreover, during the Nineteen Nineties, Abbé Pierre created problems for Emmaüs by collaborating with the revisionist historian Roger Garaudy and by publicly collaborating with “rival” associations equivalent to the Droit au logement whose methods, if not goals, were diametrically against those of Emmaüs. In the summer of 2024, the model we proposed seems to have come to fruition and even intensified as the Abbé Pierre Foundation begins to distance itself from the image of Abbé Pierre. This distance has recently been dramatically increased following latest revelations made available by this organization in early September 2024.

Different distancing strategies

By analyzing 43 articles published in the French press between April and August 2024, we can outline the most significant messages of Emmaüs and the foundations advised by the crisis communications company. These messages, evident in statements from current and former leaders, can be summarized in six distancing levers:

From distancing to a whole break

These points reflect a communication strategy aimed toward preserving the integrity of the Emmaüs movement while meeting the demands for justice and recognition of the victims. The distance from his historical resource is evident, but Abbé Pierre stays an important historical reference. However, in early September 2024, the situation escalated with the publication of additional, much more serious testimony.

The Egaé Reportpublished on September 4, documents several cases of sexual assault, including one involving a vulnerable person and one other involving a toddler, in addition to rape cases.

Following these latest reports, the Abbé Pierre Foundation announced a series of actions, planning to completely abandon the image of Abbé Pierre in its activities and communications. Three organizations have taken radical steps to distance themselves from their historical resources by reviewing their memory policies. The Abbé Pierre Foundation will change its name, Emmaüs France is considering removing the words “Founder Abbé Pierre” from its logo, and the memorial/museum dedicated to Abbé Pierre will remain permanently closed.

Perhaps more revelations will come to light, as quite a few “historical cleansings” have already been announced. Even as the organization struggles to survive, distancing itself from its founder, it must depend on the values ​​that bind its community of volunteers, employees and donors to assist them survive what can be described as “organizational mourning.”

Hoping to draw customers, firms from Amazon Down Buzz we’ve got taken praising their good deeds in corporate social responsibility reports.

CSR reports allow firms to spotlight what they’ve done for workers, consumers, communities and the environment – essentially all of their goals beyond simply making a profit. Research shows that CSR statements are interconnected growing sales.

as professor of promotingI believed this raised an interesting query: when firms are successful with CSR disclosures, do they acquire recent customers, or do their additional sales come solely from their existing base?

In recent research several hundred Chinese firms, friend and I put the query to the test. We find that CSR disclosure reduces a firm’s dependence on existing customers by 2.1%.

This is excellent news for firms. This means that additional sales come from recent customers who are literally impressed by the corporate’s CSR activities.

But not all of the conclusions were positive.

To sell more products, firms often have to buy more supplies. A logical follow-up query, then, is: does a company’s disclosure of CSR information lead it to accumulate purchases from recent suppliers?

In fact, we found the alternative. Companies that published CSR information looked as if it would discourage recent suppliers. This is likely because suppliers often incur costs when a company decides to prioritize social responsibility.

Becoming depending on suppliers comes at a cost to businesses. When suppliers know that a company is determined by them, they sometimes demand payment in money fairly than credit. This may harm the corporate since it now has less funds for investments.

While CSR reports impress customers, they appear to antagonize suppliers – and that comes at a cost.

Why it matters

Previous research has shown that CSR disclosures can increase sales, but it surely has long been unclear whether these additional sales come from old or newly acquired customers. Our work provides transparency that firms can use to make decisions.

The findings are also of interest to lawmakers, regulators and corporate responsibility advocates who’re debating whether to make CSR reporting mandatory.

The United States doesn’t require firms to publish CSR reports, but some countries do. One of them is China, which in 2008 ordered all public firms to submit annual CSR reports, starting in 2009. This created the conditions for us to conduct an almost natural experiment.

Interestingly, in keeping with reports from the US Securities and Exchange Commission considered as undertaking some type of corporate social responsibility mandatory reporting. In the absence of necessities, many US corporations will proceed to voluntarily report their CSR.

In other words, the necessity for empirical evidence on the prices and advantages of CSR disclosure is greater than ever.

What’s next?

Increasing occurrence extreme weather phenomena AND weather-related fatalities and injuries piqued my interest in environmental responsibility. I actually have two ongoing research projects.

First, I exploit information publicly reported by the corporate to measure environmental risks and actions taken to cut back them. Second, I examine how CEO incentives influence a firm’s environmental disclosure, actions, and spending—or lack thereof.

At first glance United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) appear to be a call for businesses to transform and contribute to improving society and the environment.

Launched in 2015, the program includes 17 goals that address the world’s most pressing challenges, from climate motion to poverty eradication. These goals are the major pillars discussions on global politics and so they became buzzword for corporations willing to demonstrate its commitment to social and environmental sustainability.

However, the reality for a lot of corporations could be very different: the SDGs are increasingly used to reinforce existing practices moderately than to truly solve social problems.

Supposedly, the Sustainable Development Goals provide a worldwide framework that aligns and engages key stakeholders to achieve common social and environmental goals. Supporters of the Sustainable Development Goals for business is struggling to constitute a comprehensive social contract that pays attention to sustainable development, and supply a system to help managers implement them.

However, corporations are free to use the SDG framework, logos and colours of their communications without external verification. That means they will easily use them as an easy signal of excellent intentions without having to take them seriously.

Political textbook strategies

Our latest research article examines how corporations use these goals to not only contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals, but additionally lobby governments for favorable treatment and shape the processes and outcomes of political decision-making.

We did this by conducting a case study of 4 subsidiaries of Western European multinational corporations in Indonesia, where the government is decentralized and sometimes interferes with the activities of personal sector corporations. especially foreign multinational corporations.

We have observed that the SDGs influence fame – project integrity, responsibility and commitment – ​​for corporations to be strategic moderately than altruistic. Businesses are using the SDGs to strengthen relationships with policymakers, influence policy discussions and advance their very own interests under the guise of sustainability and the common good.

Rather than making meaningful change, there’s a risk that the SDGs will likely be hijacked by corporations to improve their public image, while perpetuating the practices they claim to address.

While the cozy relationship between business and politics is nothing recent, our research shows that corporations are using the SDGs not only to “do good,” but additionally to gain political access and influence government regulation.

Our research found that corporations were using SDG-related strategies to strengthen their ties with governments and shape policy agendas that ultimately benefited their financial performance. In particular, we identified three strategies: cross-sector partnerships, conflict management and constituency constructing.

Cross-sector partnerships

The first strategy that corporations used to advance their policy agendas using the SDGs was to develop cross-sector partnerships. Traditionally seen as a cornerstone of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, cross-sector partnerships bring together government, industry and nonprofit partners to achieve a typical goal.

Such partnerships are often an invite to a seat at the table for dialogue on sustainability and related policy discussions. Due to the financial power of huge corporations, these partnerships tend to shift towards supporting corporate interests.

By participating in such partnerships, corporations gain legitimacy through a visual connection to governments, nonprofit entities, and the common good. This, in turn, builds social capital that might be used to further influence. example of that is the paradox that a few of the biggest polluters often rank high in environmental, social and governance (ESG) rankings.

The electoral district constructing

The second strategy utilized by corporations was constructing an electorate, i.e. creating support amongst local communities. This involves directly supporting government priorities – reminiscent of farming communities – to help alleviate tensions between businesses and native governments.

Its aim is to create a support base for corporations. Thanks to this social support, corporations can gain access to and support from local politicians who resolve whether to grant or extend factory licenses.

This strategy encourages the mobilization of stakeholders to advocate on behalf of corporations. Constituency constructing may play a big role in shaping decision-maker sentiment during conflicts reminiscent of union strikes or labor rights disputes. This strategy often complements other strategies.

Conflict management

The third and final strategy corporations used was conflict management, which focused on constructing the support needed to resolve political disputes. The SDGs were used to enhance efforts to find common goals amongst a spread of stakeholders.

Building social capital and credibility in such situations was irreplaceable for corporations. Significant social investment can improve public perceptions and supply businesses with bargaining power during conflicts, serving as a tool to ease tensions. This strategy isn’t any different from the strategy used for individuals who: put your conscience comfy by purchasing carbon offsets for air travel.

All three strategies – cross-sector partnerships, conflict management and constituency constructing – have helped corporations operating abroad reduce nationalist bias, face fewer bribe requests and improve their relationships with host governments.

While investing in the SDGs is a greater alternative to paying bribes, our research warns that these strategies may have negative effects by empowering political actors. For example, political figures may find a way to maintain or consolidate their power through increased corporate investment.

Beyond the company’s fame

The use of the SDGs by the private sector must be rigorously examined, as not all SDG initiatives can serve the common good. Our research, together with other people’s researchfound that corporations put money into corporate social responsibility initiatives to improve their relationships with host governments.

Greenwashing — when corporations exaggerate or misrepresent their environmental efforts — and the manipulation of sustainability rankings are well-documented issues. As our research shows, the same applies to the use of sustainability claims for political purposes. These issues indicate that the SDGs may change into tools to maintain the established order moderately than driving meaningful change.

Canada lags behind in global rankings of progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. To reverse this trend and speed up progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, Canada needs higher mechanisms to hold businesses accountable, ensure compliance with the intended goals of the SDGs, and take a serious – even perhaps altruistic – approach to addressing social and environmental challenges.

An necessary step on this direction can be for the private sector to adopt the SDGs, not for the sake of corporate fame, but as a part of a real commitment to sustainability and social responsibility.