A few months ago, while taking part in a meeting between professionals committed to CSR in Lyon, I was surprised to hear the virulent feedback from a few people in the group: “but of course it's normal to steal concepts !” So I asked myself whether this principle was compatible with CSR, mobilizing my network of the world's most creative countries - Sweden, the United States and England - to get an international opinion on the matter.
1. The question of morality and idea theft
In France, the majority of responses that day were: “If it works for others, why bother: I might as well reproduce it, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel”. Apart from the moral aspect, there seemed to be a certain blue-white-red pride in duplicating an idea or concept in general: “competition is healthy”.
When I asked about the risks of this approach, I might as well have been talking Chinese. Those who defended the idea of “stealing know-how” seemed to be suggesting that this notion had no connection with morality.
Curious, I sent the question to about twenty former colleagues, mainly American and English. The panel also included a few Swedes. The question was simple: “Would you copy or steal a concept if there was money to be made? ”
The answer was unequivocal: several straightforward “no" - mostly coming from my American friends. When I asked them to justify this answer, the first reason that was given was “it's amoral”. So the notion of morality differs from country to country, but so far, nothing new. On the other hand, other arguments were quickly given: “it would ruin my reputation, so nobody would trust me”; “it would show my professional inability to find solutions on my own”.
If there is a cultural difference, it is important to remember that French law also qualifies intellectual property theft as “the theft of an idea, a creative expression or an invention by a person or a company”, and that this constitutes an offence.
In terms of CSR, Archie B Carroll's 1979 pyramid reminds us of the importance of complying with the law. If the law has shortcomings, a responsible company must then refer to universal morality. From a theoretical point of view, then, the foundations of CSR and the idea of copying an idea or several ideas are not compatible.
2. The risk of herd behavior in a CSR approach
Every day on LinkedIn, I see copy-and-paste examples of CSR initiatives: one company runs a marathon for charity, and all the other companies start running to support the cause. One company starts planting trees: all companies start planting trees. A company organizes a fresk: all companies want to organize fresks. And even fresks' creators are copying each other, since there are currently over 180 on sustainable development themes.
You can't tell one company from another by its CSR strategy and communications.
On the other side of the Atlantic, management is constantly on the lookout for novelty and originality, particularly in terms of image. For a campaign to be successful, it has to stand out from the competition. CSR, which uses strategic and marketing codes, is no exception.
One is looking for a societal approach that not only makes an impression, but also serves business. One of the most successful examples of CSR positioning is Patagonia's “don't buy this jacket” ad. It addresses the forms of pollution caused by the textile industry in a bid to reassure its nature-loving customers. This risky campaign succeeded in boosting the brand's sales from a stable growth of 500M in 2011 to 1.5 Mrd in 2017.
Another example is P&G's campaign for the London Olympics. Although far from exemplary in terms of CSR strategy, they made a big impact by highlighting the role of mothers in the success of athletes. A way of shining a spotlight on a role that is often devalued in society. Mothers are the ones who do the shopping and buy their products. For the corporation, it was an opportunity to capture their attention and build loyalty.
Finally, Google is to be commended for its boldness in publicly supporting Gay Pride around the world through its digital services. Since its creation, Google has been committed to inclusion and collaboration within its teams: a way for the brand to guarantee creativity at the service of innovative functionalities.
3. Creativity is a source of growth for a company, as are the fundamental principles of CSR
In a Forbes article citing a joint study by the Harvard Business Review and Canva, 96% of respondents said that “creative ideas are essential to a company's long-term success and performance”.
Another Harvard Business Review article goes further on the importance of having a unique CSR strategy: "A goal-driven corporate responsibility strategy can help companies challenge themselves to think bigger and do more while also increasing their accountability to stakeholders. However, setting corporate responsibility goals is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. A large retail chain’s goals may be very different from those of a small software company’s. The key is to develop a set of goals that are rooted in your company’s brand, business strategy, and culture. This will increase your likelihood of success. If you don’t adopt a strategy that feels authentic to your customers, you risk being accused of greenwashing or performative activism; if you adopt a strategy that is too ambitious, you risk falling far short of your goals. Either way, you risk losing credibility and public trust."
In your CSR strategy, be careful not to copy your neighbor: in terms of image, in the best case it won't add value, in the worst case it can do you a disservice.
4. Can copying an idea save time and improve performance?
In 2015, French media outlet Capital published Business creation: copying an idea can pay off. Looking closely at the examples cited (Viadeo, PriceMinister, Quick, A little Market, etc.) all the brands praised in 2015 for copying American concepts have now closed or are well behind the original. So much for a sustainable performance.
The argument that competition can stimulate creativity is conceivable. This was Samsung's gamble against Apple. Many users feel that Android's interface and open system surpass that of IOS. Yet Iphone sales are still far higher than those of Samsung. Just as Coca-Cola will always outsell Pepsi, and McDonald's will never be overtaken by Burger King.
5. Idea theft demonstrates a lack of problem-solving ability
Returning to the justifications given by my informal panel of foreigners questioned on the issue of idea theft, one article echoes their intuition: “(idea theft) demonstrates a lack of originality, a disdain for rolling up one's sleeves to innovate, and a deficiency of moral integrity. Moreover, it indicates thinking oriented toward shortcuts and easy gains rather than lasting impact and genuine progress.”
Juan, a Columbia graduate, replied, “If I steal ideas, it's because I'm incapable of coming up with one on my own; that I'm not really qualified nor interested in the subject. What credibility or professional expertise could I possibly have? ”
Indeed, for my Americans friends : apart from the moral aspect, stealing a concept shows a lack of qualification or knowledge. And this is perhaps one of the reasons for the herd effect in CSR in France: many players in the field are not yet properly trained in CSR. On the other hand, these principles have been studied in Anglo-Saxon universities for decades.
6. CSR requires innovation and the capacity to see the global picture
The ability to innovate and differentiate themselves businesswise are principles that French people are not always comfortable with. According to the World Economic Forum, France ranks 16th among the most creative countries. Studies also show that the French, like the Germans, are known for their aversion to risk, while the Americans and the British are more willing to venture into the unknown.
James, a business analyst in London, replied: “Apart from the reprehensible ethical aspect, when you create a concept, it's because you've identified a problem or a need and are looking for a solution. You grope around, thinking about mechanisms and constraints. The notion of economics comes later, and that's often the problem for inventors. Those who steal concepts are motivated by the idea of making easy money.
But if I'm driving off into unknown territory for an unknown length of time, who would benefit me the most ? The person who designed the car or the person who stole it and knows how to market it? The person who stole the car won't hesitate to play tricks at the first opportunity, whereas the other person can help me keep the car moving. That's why, I think, we unconsciously prefer the original".
The morality of the story : when it comes to CSR, there would be no need to look at what your competitors' are doing, let alone copy it. It's far more rewarding to think up a strategy and solutions tailored to the needs of your organization and its stakeholders.
Did you know? Rate A Company's stakeholder approach was copied by several financial players in 2019, without success. Positive W.'s “CSR label” is one of the copycats, taking RAC's stakeholder approach to which it has added the know-how of other existing CSR labels: the Bcorp referentials, the Afnor CSR label visuals, the EcoVadis platform principle, etc... It has managed to be promoted in a national investment institution's (BPI) article under two different brand names, even though it does not comply with French regulations on labels to date. This brand, which sells an “official European CSR label made in France”, has achieved the feat of not complying with the label guarantee principle as it stands, and of being called into question for its misleading marketing messages. Indeed, the authorities - particularly in France - have publicly expressed an unfavorable opinion of a European CSR label. Given their lack of mastery of the subject, these “CSR players” and their practices run a strategic and reputational risk for customers who allow themselves to be seduced. They also contribute to the growing cynicism in this field, undermining our ambitions to respect the living world.
Le saviez-vous ? En 2022, une étude de Lillien M. Ellis doctorante à l'Université de Cornell montre que le vol d’idées en entreprise peut avoir des conséquences néfastes en interne et diminuer l’engagement des collaborateurs. Voici les principes-clés de cette analyse :
- les voleurs d’idées sont jugés plus sévèrement que les voleurs d’argent
- le fait de récompenser en interne les voleurs de concepts conduit à des perceptions négatives
- les gens sont moins enclins à proposer leur aide aux voleurs d’idées par rapport aux voleurs d’argent
- Quand les gens ont le choix, ils préfèrent travailler avec un voleur d’argent plutôt qu’un voleur d’idées
- Voler des idées créatives ont des conséquences plus graves que de voler des concepts pragmatiques.
- Afin de garder leur capacité à innover, cet article donne des pistes pour que les directions restent vigilantes au vol d’idées.
Did you know? In 2022, a study by Lillien M. Ellis, a doctoral student at Cornell University, shows that stealing ideas in a business environment can have damaging consequences internally and reduce employee commitment.
Here are the key principles of this analysis:
- Idea thieves are judged more harshly than money thieves
- Rewarding concept thieves internally leads to negative perceptions
- People are less inclined to offer help to idea thieves than to money thieves
- When people have a choice, they'd rather work with a money thief than an idea thief
- Stealing creative ideas has more serious consequences than stealing pragmatic concepts.
- In order to maintain their ability to innovate, this article outlines ways in which management can remain vigilant against idea theft.
