Is something better than nothing?

[Alpha]

Corporate social responsibility (CSR). You may be noticing it. It's a bit of a fad. But let's think critically about it.

First, what is it?

A concept whereby organisations consider the interests of society by taking responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, communities and other stakeholders, as well as the environment. (I can't discover who wrote this.)

What does it look like?

Empty rhetoric, perhaps? What is five cents going to do? Oh, but didn't you notice all the Starbucks? OK, so you'll give five cents of mine to (RED). But is that even being selfless? Is this just a way to extract an even larger amount of money from people? Exactly how does this money get spent?

This one, I think, is from the Middle East. And it infuriates me. What the hell! A child putting an apple in the bin? Firstly, apples decompose. He'd be better off putting that in the compost. Second, he didn't eat half of the apple. Third, bins exist outside of McDonald's restaurants. Fourth, Ronald didn't exactly do anything. Hell, do McDonald's even sell fresh, whole apples?

I jest. But it's worth thinking about. What exactly is that ad achieving? It stated no commitments on behalf of McDonald's to keep anything clean. It's just green washing.

Importantly, it almost seemed like something local or central government ought to be encouraging -- a point I will expand on later.

This one is just really funny.

-------------------

It is often said that CSR operates through a 'triple bottom line' mechanism. This is usually reduced to a mantra of 'people, planet, profit'. Through CSR, apparently, all three can be achieved. A win-win-win.

But does CSR actually contribute to sustainability, or any other similar goals often linked to the concept? Or is it ideological?

CSR has been criticised based on evidence which suggests that 'people' and 'planet' are the appendages, and 'profit' the core. If CSR was genuine, would all three become central? Why, when the going gets tough, is CSR likely to drop off? Why are they not actually integral, yet consumers are told that they are so important, and that the corporations care so much?

I see CSR as a dressing. It is not a fundamental shift. I am absolutely sceptical that it is part of some kind of transformation to an enlightened operating platform for the private sector.

This conceptual 'dressing' is created to make consumers feel good about buying. To buy more, or to buy things they wouldn't have otherwise. Thus, they can actually be very dangerous.

If private business can prove that they are following voluntary good practice in terms of internalising their externalities, there is certainly a diminished incentive for government to take action, in terms of regulation, monitoring, and even taxation.

What about that Pfizer clip, from The Corporation? I'm not sure exactly what happened, but it seems like they subsidised the building of a block of flats. Though they failed on the security guard front. But since when was it private enterprises role to provide public amenities? Is this a positive or a negative development? Should we be concerned that somewhat (moreso than government) unaccountable organisations are increasingly taking this role? Is it an attempt to get more profit? If so, so what?

Behind the green PR is a deeper corporate political strategy: to get the world’s governments to allow corporations to police themselves through voluntary codes of conduct, win–win partnerships and best practices learning models, rather than binding legislation and regulation.
(Brown & Fraser, 2006, p.111)

Who then decides what is important in terms of social responsibility? We vote for government in common, as an entire community. But as long as a private enterprise earns a profit, it can act in a manner of its choosing; irrespective of the number of people who think its actions are suitable or unsuitable.

Another related concern is this: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? "Who will guard the guards themselves?" "Who watches the watchmen?" I saw a taxi the other day. Completely green it was painted. Apparently, it wasn't carbon neutral. No, it went further. This company, it is claimed, takes more carbon out of the air every year than it puts in. But how do I know that? Who are we listening to, and are they they telling the full truth?

----------------------

However, is something better than nothing?

So what if Starbucks isn't exactly clear on how 5c from your latte is going to save the world -- at least they're giving 5c, right? Better than no cents.

I wonder if that's true; but it's certainly a valid argument. Something is better than nothing. I'd be willing to choose a fair trade coffee, or a supposedly environmentally-friendly dishwashing detergent over the alternatives, even if I had to pay a bit more. It's 'doing my bit': having responsibility. I shop for presents for my girlfriend at Lush, who do not test on animals, and ensure that all their inputs are sustainable, and recycle as much as possible. And good on them!

But we should be sceptical about CSR. What are the real motivations? Or perhaps I'm being a cynical jerk. Discuss.