More companies seem to be pondering the value of corporate social responsibility programs. The idea that a company can do well financially by doing good may strike some as mere PR, but the idea has taken hold at some companies. The time for this may be ripe, as more investors and shareholder activists take up the cause. The New York Times notes that Michael Porter, of Harvard Business School, and Mark Kramer, a consultant, have been proselytizing for what they call "shared value," which dovetails nicely with CSR. Other terms for the concept include: "triple bottom line," "impact investing," sustainability and ESG (environmental, social and governance).

There are plenty of areas in which being a good citizen is tantamount to being a good business person. Over on FierceFinanceIT, we've noted that many banks have been promoting green data centers, realizing a wealth of savings and PR benefits. Other examples abound.

The New York Times notes GE's "ecomagination" program, which has promoted development of technologies and practices to cut energy and materials consumption across the GE empire.

"To count in the program, a product must deliver a significant energy savings or environmental benefit over previous designs. GE hired an outside environmental consulting firm, GreenOrder, to help in measuring performance. To date, more than 100 GE products have qualified, from jet engines to water filtration equipment to light bulbs. In 2010, such products generated sales of $18 billion, up from $10 billion in 2005, when the program began."

One follow-on issue here is the degree to which companies should report these efforts. From a compliance point of view, the issue is heating up just a bit. We noted recently that as institutional investors pay more attention to these issues, we're hearing more calls for mandatory reporting. A group of institutions recently asked major exchanges and SROs to require sustainability reporting be incorporated into listing rules.

More institutions would no doubt benefit from such information. But an actual reporting requirement at this point would be tricky. A recent roundtable held by The Guardian recently made clear that meaningful universal metrics might be elusive. But some information would be welcome. And it shouldn't be too hard to require minimal information that could be used for comparison purposes. One thought is that this might be an area in which a narrative approach by management might work well, especially if it were supplemented by some basic metrics reporting. -Jim