There has been a lot of talk in the corporate social responsibility (CSR) press recently about whether CSR professionals should take a step back and let everyone get on with the real business of making money. It is not a conversation that should last very long. Companies should recognise that responsible business practice makes for sustainable profits.  
Most of the real action in corporate responsibility has happened over the past ten years, generating real momentum. We sometimes forget how much has already been achieved, not to mention how different the business world looks now. 

It was only in 1999, for example, that AccountAbility published AA1000, its framework standard on social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting. In the same year, the infant Global Reporting Initiative released the exposure draft of its sustainability reporting guidelines, which are now being used by thousands of companies all around the world.

After years of mounting pressure for more responsible business practice, these two developments signalled a collective will to change. The lexicon of ethical business has become mainstream. CSR is widely discussed in the media and in boardrooms. Even The Economist recognises CSR as a valid concept.

Changing times
Two Tomorrows' research shows the scale of the change. In 1999, fewer than 50 of the world's 100 largest companies were making any form of disclosure on non-financial matters, most of this being on limited environmental issues. 10 years on, all bar one of them produce some form of sustainability reporting. Quality and scope might be variable, but the basic requirement to be accountable for sustainability performance has been established.

In 2004, in partnership with AccountAbility, we published a global accountability rating. This was the first serious attempt to measure global accountability for sustainability impacts across the world's largest companies, as opposed to other indices that considered just the leaders in CSR. The average accountability rating score that year was just 24%, with nearly a quarter of companies scoring below 10%.

Over the next five years, the rating charted a period of massive change among multinationals. By 2008, the
average score had nearly doubled to 45%. Vodafone, the leading company, scored 78%. Clearly, big business is trying to be more accountable for both its social and it environmental impacts.

But what's the picture in print and paper? There are not many companies directly associated with the paper value chain in Fortune's G100 (the basis for our research) - although all of them will be massive buyers of print. TimeWarner is one company that has featured in the ranking and we know it has been making efforts to engage with the paper sourcing agenda. Its most recent CSR report talks about ethical sourcing guidelines and a commitment to reducing its environmental footprint.

More generally, we know the media and print sectors mirror wider commerce, with a relatively small number of companies adopting a leadership position and the rest playing catch up. Although our research shows that the sector generally lags behind the overall industry averages in the rating, it is pretty clear that change is happening now. The biggest drivers for change will be factors such as company strategy in the face of new media technologies and the responsible sourcing practices of the remaining big paper buyers. As massive companies such as TimeWarner start to follow the leadership shown by companies such as Pearson and Guardian News & Media in the UK, print and paper buying practices are also set to change.

If recent events are anything to go by, we can, unfortunately, expect more corporate failures and scandals. We are only at the end of the beginning.

We enter the next decade with eyes fixed on the financial sector, wondering when truly sustainable behaviour will be properly recognised and rewarded. Perhaps this remains our greatest challenge.

Mark Line is executive chairman of CSR consultancy Two Tomorrows Group www.twotomorrows.com