The latest issue of The Economist, not wanting to be outdone, just ran a number of articles on sustainability that are, at the very least, worth a mention. Today we tackle the last five.

In do it right, we are reminded that the industry has been more or less shaken into adopting CSR policy, that globalization is largely responsible for bringing the issue into the spotlight, but that an economic recession would be bad news for the CSR industry – as companies might then see it as a luxury that could be done without. It also tries to deduce, should corporate goodness continue to flourish, how CSR might evolve. Will it be a wave of disruptive innovation that features a new breed of “social entrepreneur” that takes over as the driving force, following Mr. Benioff’s example of committing 1% of equity, profits, and time to community good? In comparison to the state of affairs today, where the same few and familiar names pop up again and again, an entrepreneurial model of tackling social and environmental problems would stir up the CSR world.

In just good business, we are told that although CSR is now mainstream, few companies are doing it well. With such a broad focus that spans everything from volunteering in the local community to looking after employes, from helping the poor to saving the planet, many companies are finding it hard to know what to focus on. CSR today appears to be composed of three broad layers. The basic layer is corporate philanthropy where companies allocate about 1% of pre-tax profits to worthy causes. On top of that is risk management to prevent disasters and worker exploitation. On top of that is an opportunity layer, where they try to find value in CSR.

In the feel-good factor, we are told that many people like CSR because helping the environment and others makes them feel good. The WFP connection is partly why three out of four applications apply to TNT. KPMG employees now donate 40,000 hours a year. Volunteer programs at Salesforce.com involve 85% of its workforce. The trend is catching on – and those companies that buy in are more likely to attract talent than those that do not.

In the next question, we’re told that, clearly, CSR has arrived. But is it working? First of all, sceptics still matter as they are found, disproportionately, in senior management. The reality is that the welfare a company creates in the form of jobs, products, or innovation still dwarfs anything they do, or are likely to do, in the name of CSR. Furthermore, a socially conscious and bankrupt business is no good to anyone. In addition, since the focus of business should be to return value to the shareholders, they are probably limited to focussing on the “sweet spot” where initiatives are good for profits and social welfare, which might, in actuality, and unfortunately, be quite limited for the average business. But interest in Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) is on the rise, along with a general surge in interest in anything climate-change related. So CSR will march, or at least stumble, forward.

In a stitch in time, we are told that business leaders embrace CSR for a number of reasons. When the CEO of Wal-Mart realized that it’s “not just our customers, but our communities, our countries, and even the world”, he converted. Yahoo! started to accept it in the aftershock of being blamed for the jailing of two Chinese dissidents. And some companies are lured by the glamour of joining organizations like the Clinton Global Initiative. The rhetoric might be about doing the right thing, but a large driver appears to be risk management – about limiting the damage to the brand and bottom line that can be inflicted by bad press, boycotts, and the burdens of legal action. Not the best reason, but maybe beggars can’t be choosers.