CSR vs RSE: Understanding the Key Differences to Optimize Your Business Strategy

CSR and CSR: Two Visions of Corporate Responsibility, between Regulatory Idealism and Economic Realism

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a fundamental concept that integrates the challenges of sustainable development into the strategy of organizations. Also known as CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), it aims to improve sustainable performance by reconciling economic, social and environmental performance.

Implementing a CSR approach allows companies to adopt environmental management in accordance with international standards, in particular ISO 26000. This roadmap engages stakeholders and promotes increased environmental responsibility, while ensuring profitability and customer and employee loyalty.

The environmental impact of CSR is a central issue: reducing CO₂ emissions, optimizing resources, improving the supply chain. However, benefits such as branding and competitive differentiation must be weighed against the costs and challenges of integration. A well-constructed CSR strategy improves the resilience and competitiveness of companies in the long term.

Comparing CSR at Nike and LVMH: Approaches, Social and Environmental Performance

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) involves the integration of social, environmental and economic elements into a company's strategy. Let's compare the CSR strategies of Nike, a sports equipment giant, and LVMH, the world leader in luxury, through the following axes: CSR elements, integration into the overall and marketing strategy, dashboard monitoring, and return on investment (ROI).

Elements of CSR: Social and Environmental Commitments

Nike was criticized in the 1990s for the working conditions in its subcontracting plants. In response, the company has put in place initiatives to improve these conditions and reduce its environmental impact. For example, the "Move to Zero" program aims to achieve zero carbon emissions and zero waste. Nike has also developed sustainable materials such asFlyknit, a weaving technology that would reduce waste by 60% compared to traditional methods, and theFlyleather,Made of at least 50% recycled leather fibers, thus decreasing the environmental impact compared to full-grain leather.

LVMH, for its part, is focusing on the traceability of supplies, eco-design and biodiversity. The group has launched the "LIFE 360" (LVMH Initiatives For the Environment) program, which sets ambitious sustainability goals by 2030. For example, LVMH is committed to ensuring that 100% of its raw materials are traceable and comply with strict environmental standards. On the France side, we can clearly see the regulatory dimension permeating the traceability approach, while on the other hand, it is the overall product marketing approach that is impacted.

Integration of CSR into the overall and marketing strategy

For Nike, CSR is integrated into its product and marketing strategy. The company promotes eco-designed products and highlights its environmental initiatives in its advertising campaigns. For example, Nike communicates about the use of recycled polyester in its clothing, helping to reduce plastic waste.

LVMH integrates CSR by promoting the craftsmanship and sustainability of its products. The group highlights the use of sustainable materials and environmentally friendly practices in the manufacture of its luxury products. For example, some of the group's Maisons, such as Guerlain, are committed to the preservation of biodiversity by supporting initiatives such as the training of women beekeepers around the world.

Dashboard monitoring and return on investment (ROI)

Nike regularly publishes social responsibility reports detailing its sustainability progress, with specific metrics such as reducing CO₂ emissions and using recycled materials. These initiatives have not only improved Nike's brand image, but have also led to cost savings through energy efficiency and waste reduction.

LVMH monitors its CSR performance through key indicators defined as part of the "LIFE 360" program. The group measures aspects such as the traceability of raw materials, the reduction of the carbon footprint and the impact on biodiversity. While the direct ROI is difficult to quantify, these initiatives reinforce LVMH's reputation as a leader in sustainable luxury and meet consumers' growing expectations for environmental and social responsibility.

Nike and LVMH take distinct approaches to CSR, reflecting their respective industries and corporate strategies. Nike focuses on sustainable innovation and the integration of recycled materials into its products, while LVMH focuses on preserving craftsmanship and the traceability of raw materials. In both cases, CSR has become a central element of their strategy, helping to improve their social and environmental performance, as well as their market positioning.

ISO 26000, Nike and LVMH: Measuring Environmental Performance and Reliability of Audits

ISO 26000 provides guidelines for integrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) into organizational strategies, with a focus on environmental performance and stakeholder engagement. Although not certifiable, this standard encourages companies to adopt transparent and ethical practices. Nike and LVMH illustrate two distinct approaches to implementing CSR approaches aligned with ISO 26000.

Environmental Performance Assessment and Audit Reliability

Nike uses internal audits to assess its suppliers' compliance with its Code of Conduct, including announced and unannounced visits. These audits are conducted by internal teams and independent third parties, measuring compliance with the standards set by Nike.

LVMH, for its part, is committed to increased transparency in terms of environmental, social, ethical and governance performance. The group implements internal and external audits to assess its practices and those of its suppliers, striving to provide comprehensive and objective reporting.

However, recent investigations have highlighted gaps in the luxury industry's audit systems. For example, a Reuters investigation found that some formal inspections failed to detect major problems at subcontractors, raising questions about the effectiveness of internal and external audits.

Role of the Quality Manager and the Marketing and Purchasing Functions

The quality manager plays a crucial role in ensuring compliance with environmental and social regulations, ensuring that internal and external audits are rigorous and impartial. It is essential that these audits are conducted independently to ensure the reliability of the information reported.

At Nike, the marketing and purchasing departments work closely together to promote eco-designed products and ensure that suppliers comply with the company's environmental standards. The collaboration aims to strengthen the credibility of Nike's sustainability initiatives.

LVMH also focuses on training its employees in environmental issues, with the aim of raising awareness and educating its talents on the challenges related to environmental preservation.

ISO 26000 encourages companies to adopt transparent and responsible practices in terms of environmental performance. Both Nike and LVMH have set up audit systems to evaluate and improve their practices. However, the effectiveness of these audits depends on their independence and thoroughness. Quality, marketing and purchasing departments play critical roles in the implementation and communication of these initiatives, helping to integrate the principles of ISO 26000 into the company's overall strategy.

Environmental Auditing: Transparency Tool or Barrier to Entry?

Environmental auditing has become a key tool for measuring companies' environmental performance and ensuring the reliability of their decarbonization commitments. In France as in the United States, pressure from climate regulations and stakeholders is pushing organizations to structure their reporting and rely on specialized firms. However, behind this imperative of transparency, there is also a mechanism that reinforces the dominance of large firms and complicates the entry of new players into the market.

Two regulatory models: France vs the United States

In France, the Grenelle Law and the Pacte Law have consolidated the importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR), imposing extra-financial reporting obligations and strengthening environmental certification criteria. Environmental auditing is a central element of this dynamic, framed by standards such as ISO 14001 or ISO 26000. This approach has fostered the development of a market structured around major players such as SGS, Bureau Veritas and DEKRA Certification, which guarantee the regulatory compliance of companies while consolidating their dominant position.

In the United States, the environmental audit market is more flexible, influenced by less restrictive regulations and a more proactive approach by companies. Audits are often conducted with a view to risk management and cost optimization, with firms such as AECOM, CH2M and Environmental Resources Management (ERM) leading the market. Nevertheless, in the face of new emerging climate regulations, American companies anticipate an increase in these audits to avoid sanctions and meet investors' expectations.

A Regulated Ecology in France, an Opportunity Issue in the United States

The ecological approach is another area where France and the United States are opposed. In France, the ecological transition is a matter of state, framed by restrictive laws such as the CSRD directive or the anti-waste law. Large companies must publish extra-financial reports and commit to carbon neutrality.

However, the reality is more nuanced. The weight of administrative obligations and the investments required to meet the new standards is leading to resistance. Many French companies are adopting a defensive posture, seeking to minimize costs rather than innovate. This situation can be explained by the extrinsic motivation model, described by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan in their theory of self-determination: when a behavior is dictated by external constraint rather than a voluntary choice, it often generates limited adherence.

In the United States, ecology is based on market dynamics. The environmental commitment of companies is above all a response to the expectations of consumers and shareholders. Tesla is the perfect example: its ecological positioning does not stem from restrictive regulations, but from a commercial opportunity. Again, the numbers speak for themselves: a Nielsen survey found that 66% of U.S. consumers are willing to pay more for an eco-friendly product. This approach explains why American companies are investing heavily in renewable energy and carbon neutrality, not out of obligation, but as a business strategy.

Environmental Auditing: A Lever for Improvement or a Selection Tool?

While environmental auditing is presented as a guarantee of transparency and continuous improvement, it also raises the question of its independence and accessibility.

• In France, only certified firms can carry out these audits, which limits competition and locks in market access for new entrants. Large companies, particularly in the luxury or industrial sectors, collaborate mainly with established players, making it difficult for new innovative structures to break through in this field.

• In the United States, the relative absence of binding standards has allowed for a greater diversity of players in the market. However, this flexibility is accompanied by doubts about the reliability of the audits, which are often carried out internally or by firms mandated directly by the audited companies, thus reducing their objectivity.

Towards a Reform of the Environmental Audit Market?

Is the environmental audit a necessity to guarantee the reliability of companies' CSR commitments or a tool for foreclosing the market to the benefit of historical players? The answer depends on the regulatory framework and the level of independence granted to certification bodies.

In Europe, the proliferation of standards and reporting requirements is promoting the professionalization of audits, but it is also increasing market concentration among a few large firms. In the United States, the rise of climate requirements could, in the long term, accelerate the institutionalization of a market that is still largely dominated by voluntary approaches.

To avoid excessive concentration, it would be relevant to open up the market to independent specialised players and to encourage the diversification of certification standards. A more balanced approach would allow companies to benefit from rigorous and reliable audits, while promoting the emergence of new solutions and methodologies adapted to the environmental challenges of tomorrow. Let's never forget that in a market where few players can enter, prices are often high without offering a service adapted to the needs of all structures... The balance of power is then reversed between supply and demand!!!!

CSR: A Focus on the Environment to the Detriment of the Social?

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is based on three pillars: economic, social and environmental. However, media and institutional attention seems to be largely oriented towards environmental performance, leaving the social aspect in the background. This trend is visible in France as well as in the United States, where companies communicate more about reducing their carbon footprint than about improving working conditions or inclusion. But is this perception based on statistical realities?

In France, an INSEE survey conducted in 2016 revealed that 59% of companies with 20 or more employees say they are aware of CSR, and among them, 45% say they are implementing actions in this area. However, when we analyse the distribution of initiatives, it appears that environmental actions, such as waste prevention or recycling, concern 83% of companies committed to a CSR approach. In comparison, the social aspect, which includes quality of life at work, professional equality and training, is not detailed with the same level of precision, which suggests a lower priority or at least less communication on these aspects (INSEE, 2016).

This disparity is confirmed in employees' perceptions. According to the MEDEF CSR Barometer (2021), 70% of employees consider their company's CSR actions to be effective. However, climate change initiatives are the ones that receive the most recognition, with 12% of employees considering them to be particularly effective. This focus on the environment could mean that social initiatives receive less visibility, or even less attention, in the CSR strategies of French companies (MEDEF, 2021).

In the United States, the situation is similar. A study conducted by BL Evolution in 2012 indicated that 83% of American companies had adopted a CSR strategy, without specifying the breakdown between social and environmental initiatives. However, the responsible finance market in the United States is a good example of this dynamic. While environmental criteria are now well integrated into the evaluation of a company's performance, social criteria are still struggling to establish themselves as a priority. An article in Le Monde (2024) points out that the number of funds dedicated to social themes remains very limited and that the social impact of investments is more difficult to measure, which explains the reluctance of investors to commit to them (Le Monde, 2024).

These trends are partly explained by regulatory factors. In France, the Grenelle Law and the Pacte Law have strengthened non-financial reporting obligations, but they have above all highlighted environmental indicators, particularly those related to CO₂ emissions. This orientation naturally pushes companies to structure their communication around their climate commitments, to the detriment of the social dimensions that are essential to a balanced CSR approach. In the United States, with environmental regulations still evolving, companies are focusing on climate risk in response to investor pressure, relegating social criteria to a background (UNFCCC, 2025).

CSR today seems to be dominated by environmental issues, which are often easier to quantify and promote to stakeholders. Yet, social aspects remain fundamental to ensuring a sustainable and inclusive transition. If companies really want to meet societal expectations, they will have to rebalance their strategy by putting as much effort into the well-being of workers, equal opportunities and business ethics as they do into reducing their carbon footprint.

A Structured Social Commitment in France, a Communication Lever in the United States

French labour law is designed as a fortress designed to protect employees against the excesses of the market. In practice, however, this fortress has some cracks. Although the legislation strictly regulates working conditions, the reality is often quite different. For example, despite working time laws, 43% of employees report working unpaid overtime. Professional equality between men and women, although established as a fundamental principle, is also struggling to become a reality. In 2022, the Professional Equality Index revealed that 17% of French companies did not reach the minimum threshold of 75 points out of 100, and the wage gap remains on average 16.8% between men and women.

Inclusion is another area where the legislative framework struggles to be translated into reality. The unemployment rate for people with disabilities remains almost twice the national average. Here, the French paradox is glaring: the legislator imposes employment quotas, but companies invoke economic or organizational constraints to justify their non-compliance.

The social sciences partly explain these discrepancies between law and reality. The theory of cognitive dissonance, developed by psychologist Leon Festinger, is a good example of this phenomenon. When a company has to reconcile legal obligations and economic constraints, it often adjusts its rhetoric rather than its practices to reduce psychological discomfort. We then observe declared commitments in favor of inclusion that struggle to translate into concrete actions. Added to this is the resistance to change, described by Kurt Lewin, which demonstrates that individuals and organizations have a natural preference for the status quo, thus hindering the effective enforcement of new regulations.

In the United States, the approach is radically different. Far from being dictated by strict legal obligations, corporate social responsibility is based on a logic of image and competitiveness. Diversity and inclusion have become major selling points. Google, Apple or Starbucks do not communicate on these subjects out of obligation, but because their customers and investors demand it. Reputation capitalism, a concept developed by management scientists, is key here: a company with strong commitments to diversity attracts talent, customers and funding.

The statistics confirm this issue. A PwC study found that 76% of U.S. consumers say they would boycott a brand that doesn't share their social or environmental values. This pressure explains why the American CSR is often more visible and assumed than the French CSR. The objective is not so much to comply with a legal standard as to meet the expectations of the market.

LVMH and Nike: Between Audits and Inclusion, Social Performance in Question

LVMH and Nike, world leaders in their respective sectors, have developed differentiated strategies to meet societal expectations in terms of social responsibility. Their commitments include both regular audits of their supply chains and recruitment policies focused on inclusion and diversity. However, these efforts raise questions about their actual effectiveness and the ability of these companies to move beyond a purely declarative approach.

LVMH has set up an audit system to ensure compliance with social and environmental standards within its ecosystem. According to its 2022 social and environmental responsibility report, these audits are carried out internally by dedicated teams, but also by independent external firms. Nevertheless, recent investigations have revealed flaws in the control of certain Italian subcontractors, particularly in the world of Dior leather goods, where precarious working conditions have been denounced. These limitations in supplier oversight illustrate the difficulty of ensuring full compliance, despite a certification framework such as ISO 26000 or the EcoVadis assessment.

In terms of recruitment and inclusion, LVMH has set up the Inclusion Index, an observatory to monitor progress in terms of diversity and equity within the group. This commitment is reflected in particular in actions to promote the integration of people with disabilities and in support of equal opportunities in the hiring process. These initiatives are part of the group's desire to reflect a socially responsible image, in line with the values of luxury.

Nike, on the other hand, has adopted a more rigorous approach to social auditing, in response to the controversies that have marked its history. The company conducts regular audits, including unannounced audits, on its suppliers, and relies on recognized certifications such as the Fair Labor Association and WRAP. These measures are supposed to guarantee dignified working conditions, although criticism remains about the persistence of problematic practices in some Asian countries where Nike outsources its production. Its 2023 impact report highlights increased transparency, but the issue of the effectiveness of controls remains a key issue.

At the same time, Nike has implemented programs to promote diversity in its recruitment. The company has invested $10 million in historically black universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) to diversify the talent that moves into its management roles. In addition, it launched the Women's Leadership Accelerator in Vietnam, a coaching program to promote the career progression of women within its strategic suppliers' factories. This policy demonstrates a commitment to embedding inclusion beyond the head office, all the way into its supply chain.

While LVMH and Nike have similar ambitions in terms of social performance, their approaches differ in execution. LVMH is focusing more on internal initiatives and commitments to enhance its brand image, while Nike is seeking to correct its liabilities by adopting stricter controls and increasing diversity in its recruitment. In both cases, the question remains open: are these strategies really transformative or are they primarily based on reputation?

A More Developed Strategic and Marketing Vision in the United States

One of the major differences between French CSR and American CSR lies in their use as a lever for differentiation. In France, CSR is first and foremost perceived as a regulatory requirement and an element of compliance. While some companies communicate about their commitments, they often do so with caution, for fear of being accused of greenwashing.

In the United States, SRC is a fully assumed marketing tool. Patagonia is an emblematic example of this approach: its ecological commitment is a direct commercial argument, highlighted in its advertising campaigns. Its famous "Don't buy this jacket" campaign invites consumers to buy less but better, while reinforcing the brand's image as a committed company. This strategic use of CSR is based on concepts from behavioral psychology, including emotional branding, which aims to create a strong emotional connection between the brand and its customers.

Two models, two logics, the same challenge

CSR in France and CSR in the United States pursue similar objectives, but rely on entirely different mechanisms. In France, social responsibility is a question of compliance and legal framework, which can hinder its appropriation by companies. In the United States, it is a strategic tool used to attract customers and investors.

Behind these differences lie deep cultural and psychological realities. France, attached to a universalist and egalitarian vision, seeks to impose common rules to structure the market. The United States, more pragmatic and individualistic, leaves it up to companies to transform these issues into business opportunities.

For companies that want to navigate between these two worlds, it is essential to adapt their discourse and strategy according to these realities. While France is relying on regulation to structure the transition, the United States is energizing it through the market and its image. Two models, two logics, but a common challenge: to fully integrate social responsibility at the heart of corporate strategies.