Is something better than nothing?

[Zargabaath]

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 is something that a potential customer should look into if they are unsure about the program. Instead of waiting for the company to explain, take initiative by asking questions & if they answers, or lack-there-of, are unsatisfactory then the customer should think about not doing business with the company if is that important to them.

In general, the consumer has loads of power over businesses, however they have forgotten the power that they hold. As an individual the consumer feels powerless because they think that they will be alone, but if every person actually acted upon their values/principles then there could be an impact. How much of an impact is uncertain and with that the consumer tends to pass their power to the government as a means to control business. But the wallet of consumers is more powerful than the paper the laws are written on.

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.

Firstly, all business, small & big, are working to make a profit. If they don't make a profit eventually that business will go down (unless the government decides that they are "too big to fail"). Then it shows that even if a company makes bad decisions or that their product is in little or no demand that they can be saved by the government - that is not good business; company's need to be born and others to die.

By helping people or the community locally and/or nationally, in different ways, it builds a positive image of the company. The company is spending money in hopes that people will look on them in better light. It can be taken as an investment. By helping (investing) in the community or people they hope to have those people do business with them and hopefully that "investment" will turn a profit or to increase sales in that area. Kind of "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".

When the going gets tough, people bunker down, ya know tighten the belt. A business does the same. They can't (shouldn't) spend too much and may have to cut spending in order to stay afloat. Now they could keep spending on CSR but then they may have to cut people or even more than originally. So they're helping people outside of the company but they are letting go of people causing them to be in tough times. Do we help people outside the family or do we make decisions that would be best for those in-house, the company family (employees). More often the selfless view is to help those who are most distant to the person; with that said the company should then continue CSR and if by doing so demands cutting employees so be it.

Having the executives take pay-cuts to curtail any cuts is one idea that is suggested by those who see big business as inherently evil. In truth jobs shouldn't have set wages, but instead be tied with the market for that company. Business is good, wages are higher; business is lacking, wages get lowered. This is adaptability that is needed by companies; it would allow for less cuts needed. Now the workforce would get paid less and may have less hours, but they would still have a job. This applies to all levels. When the going gets tough, sacrifices must be made. In truth a job is not guaranteed to a person, they must get the necessary prerequisites, look for, and if they are what the company is looking for then getting hired. More so, changes in the market dictates jobs and if the company can't keep going on as is they have to make changes. If they didn't cut people or if it ever could happen lower wages with the tide of the market, the whole company may go under. Instead of "x" number of people being out of work the whole company is: which is worse?

When does the "dressing" become a "meal" (i.e., a heartfelt serious action)? If people are to pessimist then any CSR action taken by a company will be looked with contempt. With perseverance in their [the company's] actions people may start looking optimistically at the company, but when the company hasn't done anything wrong - and being a big business is not inherently evil - it's sad that they would be distrusted. The last part gets into how business-people are treated like criminals from the beginning - I thought prejudice was frowned upon - and is a whole other topic.

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.

Government isn't meant to overly regulate, monitor, or even tax private business on whether they are CSR enough. A person is not a slave to another; a business-person is a person; companies are not slaves to society. All the regulation, monitoring, and prodding into the private sector is what causes destabilization nowadays. A Mixed Economy leads only to two things: laissez-faire capitalism or total state control.

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?

As I said before people have loads of power of businesses and adding on to that: people have more power over businesses then their government. A business needs money to survive. All interaction between businesses and consumers is voluntary - or should be. A consumer does not have to interact with any business they choose. Without a product in demand a business will die. A government makes the laws, can find loop-holes or create loop-holes to extend their power. A government is the one that gives the special favors that should not be given.

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.

Key words, as long as it earns a profit. The consumers need to use the power they have, but a lot are too lazy and prefer if the government does it for them.

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?

Then some should become those who watch the watchmen; of course then another problem arises: who watches those who watch the watchmen? Because the watchers can have their own motives and skew what they see to their benefit, goals, motives, etc. People should take a pro-active role in the realm of business.

I think while there are stores like WalMart out in the world there should be some sort of CSR. WalMart at times seems like a necessary evil, I know people who wouldn't be able to really live if they couldn't buy stuff from there. But it just brings about our own dependence on it, whereas local establishments go under because they can't compete with their prices.

Prices aren't everything. Product is important too. Wal-Mart does not have everything. And how are they evil? They provide materials that people need for cheap and from Wal-Mart workers who I know - the sentiment is that Wal-Mart employees don't want to unionize because they have it pretty good. What makes a local establishment special that it should survive? Their is no guarantee that any business will survive and all will fall with due time, so how is a natural occurrence evil?

Anyways, my point is that I think that as consumers we should start demanding better trading practices and support businesses that do.

First all the restrictions on business will need to be eased, otherwise the tugging from almost everybody will destroy the Hand. I've said that people need to wake up and realize the power that they have, but if people still want to rely on government [to do a poor job] then they will never wake.

Is CSR the privatisation of the state?

CSR does not go into the realm of protecting the rights of all citizens (including business-people) of the "state", therefore CSR is not privatizing the state.

If it was true CSR, I feel like they wouldn’t be doing all these huge media campaigns about it. Why can’t they just go ahead and do it and let their actions speak for themselves instead of calling attention to it? I’m sure all the money they spend on those ads is far more than whatever they sucker the buying public into ‘donating’. It’s just a gimmick; corporations taking advantage of the media to influence their customers’ opinions (and by extension, their bottom lines), nothing more. Sure, good things do sometimes come of it, but they could do the exact same thing without the fanfare and get way more respect for doing it. Well from me at least.

But without brining attention to their actions who would notice? People don't care about the power as consumers they hold, so why would they care to look into a certain section of a company if they are being "good". It seems that it is a lose-lose situation for companies. If they use media campaigns people feel they are just trying to cover and "appear" nice; if there isn't any media campaigns then hardly anybody would know.

Tiff, I’m one of those people who shops at Wal*Mart because I don’t make enough money to shop anywhere else. Guess who employs me? A corporation. It’s not just third world citizens they take advantage of. I don’t even make a living wage at my job and I’ve been employed there for eight years. Maybe they should use some of that CSR to actually pay their employees. Yes, I am bitter about it. My employer donates millions and millions of dollars towards all these CSR stunts (and spends millions more on the accompanying ad campaigns) but they don’t even give their own employees proper wages. The only bottom line they care about is profit.

Take care of others before "your" own - the mantra of altruism. If your company did that then what would happen to their donations? Maybe a little less or a lot. Then people would criticize that the company doesn't care. I agree with you that a company should take care of their own, but the people who care about companies helping out care more so about the "help" and not the employees. The "help" may be beneficial to them in some manner.




People! Be consumers, not customers!