CSR and the National Enquirer

OK, I admit it: I am a sucker for the tabloids. That's why I couldn't resist the temptation to share some thoughts about the CSR rankings spawned by --- yes--- John Edwards' love child!

Specifically, on Monday I was reading a NYT article ("The National Enquirer Earns Some Respect" by Stephanie Clifford) about how the National Enquirer catapulted from sensationalist tabloid to Pulitzer Prize contender. The article quoted the magazine's editor as explaining that its success breaking the John Edwards' story was "in line with The Enquirer's mission" of "show[ing] the reader that wealthy people, rich people, people who they may admire when you take away the money, have the same types of problems that they have in real life." Apparently, I have been misinterpreting the National Enquirer. I had thought its function was to trigger impulse-buys in the supermarket checkout line, but apparently it has a much higher purpose. Its editors just want to make me feel better about myself.

The National Enquirer did things on the up-and-up in its Edwards coverage. It did not pay its sources (for this story, anyway) and it went through great pains to make sure all of its information was accurate --- yet was still ignored by mainstream media, which could not believe a National Enquirer story to be credible. Plus, it contributed to our understanding of the values of a man who could have been our next President. But while I recognize that this is first and foremost an example of journalism done well, I cannot help but wonder whether a certain degree of rebranding has paved the way for the newspaper's Pulitzer candidacy. After all, never before was I aware of the National Enquirer's "mission". Were you?

Bringing this topic back home to corporate social responsibility--- and to the CSR rankings I've been covering in this blog--- the National Enquirer story has made me think about how well rankings groups are able to distill performance deserving of recognition from spin itself. So I leave you with this question: do CSR rankings really reward the companies taking the most significant actions on behalf of the environment and society? Or are they just suckers for a good story?