For years, a photo-op with schoolchildren or a tree-planting ceremony was enough to tick the box of corporate responsibility. Companies would donate a cheque, pose with a banner, and issue a press release, a tidy transaction between goodwill and visibility. But in a world rattled by climate disasters, supply chain scandals, and investor activism, this old playbook is fast losing relevance.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), once the gold standard of doing good, is no longer enough. Today’s global business landscape demands something deeper, sharper, and more accountable: ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance).

CSR and ESG are often used interchangeably, but confusing the two is like mistaking a press release for a business strategy. One is about perception. The other is about performance. And increasingly, it’s ESG that regulators monitor, investors scrutinise, and consumers’ reward.

The Rise of ESG as the New Corporate StandardCSR, to be fair, emerged from good intentions. It was born in a time when businesses were waking up to their role in society beyond profit. Companies wanted to show they cared, so they built schools, sponsored art festivals, and donated during floods. These acts were well-meaning and occasionally impactful. But they were also largely voluntary, loosely structured, and almost never tied to how the business was actually run.

There was no standard for measuring how a scholarship fund affected the company’s carbon footprint, how a football or cricket sponsorship reduced labour violations in its supply chain, or how the company’s extensive use of plastic contributed to environmental degradation. That’s where CSR fell short. It stayed in the margins, handled by public relation teams, celebrated in glossy brochures, and quietly detached from the factory floor, the boardroom, or the real environmental impacts such as plastic pollution and waste management.

ESG entered the scene as the world grew more complex and less forgiving. Investors wanted to know if a company’s climate risk could affect future earnings. Governments began demanding transparency on emissions, diversity, and corruption. Consumers started voting with their wallets, backing brands that aligned with their values. In this new climate, goodwill alone didn’t cut it. What mattered was proof.

Unlike CSR, ESG is not about generosity, it’s about governance. It’s not about one-off gestures, but long-term accountability. A company following ESG principles doesn’t just give to charity; it decarbonises its operations, audits its supply chain for labour violations, and discloses these efforts publicly. ESG is less about looking good and more about being resilient especially in a world where a reputational crisis can erupt overnight on social media and an environmental disaster can wipe out years of shareholder value.

Consider this. A telecom operator under a CSR model might donate tablets to a rural school. That’s commendable. But under an ESG model, the same company would also transition its network to renewable energy, eliminate single-use plastics from packaging, introduce strict data privacy protocols, and issue a sustainability report aligned with global standards. It would have targets, timelines, audits and consequences for missing them. The impact wouldn’t just be visible in villages or classrooms, but in board meetings, investor briefings, and procurement contracts.

The shift isn’t just philosophical, it’s financial. Major global investors now assess ESG performance when deciding where to put their money. Companies with poor ESG scores are being priced out of capital markets, left off procurement lists, and penalised by regulators. ESG has become a language of compliance and competitiveness, not just conscience.

In Bangladesh, the transition is still uneven. CSR continues to dominate, especially in sectors where community engagement is prized and regulatory enforcement is light. But for industries tied to global markets such as garments, telecom, and financial services, the pressure to evolve is real. International buyers, development finance institutions, and even some domestic investors are now asking hard questions: What are your emissions? How diverse is your leadership? Are your suppliers clean?

The challenge is that ESG is not a weekend project. It requires internal alignment, cross-functional coordination, and uncomfortable introspection. It’s not about writing cheques; it’s about rewriting policies. And for many companies, that’s a leap they are still reluctant to take.

Around the world, governments are introducing mandatory ESG disclosures. Stock exchanges are incorporating ESG criteria. Even credit ratings are being adjusted based on climate risk and governance lapses. The idea that a company can thrive while ignoring its social or environmental impact is quickly becoming obsolete.

To be clear, CSR is not irrelevant. It still has a place especially in markets where trust is built through local presence and community connection. But it must evolve. The future belongs to businesses that can link impact to operations, philanthropy to performance, and values to verifiability.

In the end, CSR asked: “What can we do for society?” ESG asks a tougher question: “How does our entire business affect the world and what are we doing about it?” That question can no longer be avoided. Not by executives. Not by investors. And not by the society watching them both.

The writer is the head of corporate communications at Banglalink. The views expressed in this article are his own.