On Corporate Social Responsibility

I’m finally done with the Annual Report! It looks rather nice, I think. I used some of my own photographs, in it, including the one with a beetle eating bread. Anyway, click here to download our Annual Report for the academic year 2007/2008. I’ve left the bleeding in because I like a little bit of raw construction… and it’s tedious to remove. ("Bleeding" is the border around the document that printers chop off when they send it to print. I’ve no idea why it’s called that.)

All in all, it’s been a pretty good year. I even have some confidence that we now have a somewhat stable core of members, which is something we’ve never had before. I’m really heartened by it. We can now go on to do even more substantial things!

Also, I must say, we welcome feedback and ideas from anyone. Mail us at nus.csrsm@gmail.com to do so or just to talk to us or even simply to say hi. Have a good day, everybody! 

Well, here we are at the end of another semester. To be exact, it’s been one week into the holidays and I’m supposed to get some things done for the Student Movement but unfortunately, I have been afflicted by what Renny, our former vice-president, diagnosed as "Post-Examination Slack Syndrome" (PESS). It seems to be very common among NUS students.

Anyway, I’ll be posting our Annual Report up soon enough. In the meantime, here’s an intriguing excerpt that overturns the conventional way we think about MNC-government relationships:

The company was also put to good political use by the president. To all intents and purposes Freeport became a quasi-state organization for Jakarta in West Papua as the principal developer and administrator of its project area and surrounds. At the same time, through support for the transmigration settlements and the military the company assisted Jakarta in its policy of "Indonesianization" of the area. Finally, back in the United States, Freeport became an influential public relations agent for the regime. Thus, far from Suharto’s being a puppet of the company, as was the general perception in Indonesia, Freeport had become a compliant and valuable asset that, with the company’s complicity, was exploited by the president.

- "The Politics of Power: Freeport in Suharto’s Indonesia", by Denise Leith, 2003

We normally think of the state as subservient to the mighty corporation, but here’s a case wherein Goliath has been tamed. Of course, there’s much more to the story than just this little excerpt. The Freeport-McMoRan case involves collusion, corruption, human rights violations and devastating environmental impacts, all of which were made possible within a special kind of dynamics with the Suharto regime. It’s almost a classic potboiler.

NUS CSR Week (which swallowed all my time!) has just gone by but we’re not done with the semester yet. Unfortunately, I can’t paste images on Blogsome, but if you happen to be in Singapore next Friday, feel free to come to our seminar. The details:

Title: Learning from Starbucks - When the Beans Just Don’t Add Up
Date: 4 April 08, Fri
Time: 6.00pm-7.30pm
Venue: Conference Room B, Biz-2, NUS Business School

Prof Bryant Simon, whom you can see here giving a short and funny lecture, will be talking about the company’s corporate practices and how it has impacted our world. 

Seats are very limited, so do mail us at nus.csrsm@gmail.com if you’re coming. See you there!

I keep wanting to write about the possibility of the world turning towards a newer form of economics but time disallows me. So, here’s a bit from an IHT article that might tempt you to find out more:

"And signs of a protectionist backlash are multiplying as worries about climate change, the rise of state-run investment funds and the bursting of the recent credit bubble give novel ammunition to those in the West who question free markets and clamor for more shelter from globalization…

When students of economics open their history books in 2030, they might read about 2008 as the year when the groundwork was laid for a re-regulation of certain markets, a more redistributive tax system and new forms of international policy coordination, economists say."

I recently attended a Singapore Compact lecture by Dr Jem Bendell on the luxury industry and he highlighted to us how Beijing has taken down billboards of the luxury brands and how India has raised taxes on luxury items more than 100%. Both actions were direct results of concerns over unrest fomenting due to very perceivable inequalities in society. Looks like there are to be some serious changes coming. I wonder how the corporate world will deal with it.

In other news (full article here), Singapore has tasked an "Inter-Ministerial Committee" to look into sustainable development. Our PM says,

"How do we get economic development and growth, and at the same time, grow in an environmentally friendly way? That’s the idea of sustainable development, where you build into your whole development strategy this awareness of the environment, energy, conservation and efficiency," said PM Lee.

This committee will "seek to build new competencies and facilitate mindshare across the public, private and people sectors to develop Singapore as an "Eco-Hub". The aim is to make Singapore an innovative thought centre and hub for urban and environmental sustainability."

The continued mindless use of the word "hub" and "mindshare" aside, it’s a good piece of news. Let’s hope we go beyond simply environmental sustainability soon, though. Sustainability has so much else to offer.

From CSR Asia (16 Jan 08):

This week saw the start of Asia’s first specialised CSR course for undergraduates at City University of Hong Kong. There are 80 students enrolled, and 30 more want to do the course but the numbers are capped due to the classroom size.

Emphasis mine. See, there is definitely demand for CSR courses at the undergraduate level. I hope NUS does the same soon. I think we might be a step behind other universities in this regard. That said, it is great to know that another university has picked it up, even though it is through a professor in the social sciences.

That in itself is pretty interesting. Here is a bit more of what Dr Frost writes:

 

the name [of the course] is designed to keep the business folk happy enough to allow the course to run at all (at one point the Faculty of Business even suggested the term CSR should not be used because the C was their territory) 

 

Strange how territorial the Business people are. I may not be close enough to the context of things to understand it fully, however. Still, it’s another good reason why we should have CSR in Business!

Now I am considering going to the City University of Hong Kong for exchange. 

I don’t understand why people always pretend, and many times forcibly do so, that their conferences, seminars, bazaars and other events are successful when they obviously aren’t. Here are a few possible reasons:

1. Their sponsors might get upset if they say the event failed. They might never sponsor them ever again.

2. Their egos get hurt admitting the truth. It diminishes their abilities.

3. They’re in denial. (More symptom than cause, but perhaps can also be a major cause.)

Is it a bad thing? Yes, it is. It’s bad for sponsors, organisers and the people who come. Here’s why:

1. Sponsors may invest in you again and go on wasting money.

2. You can’t see the problems and therefore cannot improve.

3. Future participants will not get to maximize enjoyment and have to go through your ill-organised nonsense again.

4. In the long run, nobody will trust you.

I’ve been to a number of events this year, both by NUS students and larger, more professional companies. I’m afraid to say that the same cheery and exciting advertisements go hand in hand with each. The text and the pictures all paint such lovely images, but the actual thing seldom ever matches up. These have shaken the trust I had for advertising, and by extension, for the people who produced them and those who commissioned them. I wonder how many people feel the same way.

The moral of the story is, we have to tell the truth. It’s not really something that is right or wrong. It builds trust, improves skills, increases investment profits and produces reputation. Simply put, it makes good business.

I’ve been meaning to write, but my schedule’s been so hectic. Four essays due and exams round the corner. Deadlines hang by a thread over my head like the sword of Damocles. Anyway, I thought I would just write a little bit today about something that’s been on my mind for a long while now.

I was looking around for a film to screen in school for our latest CSR event recently. We didn’t want to screen The Corporation, Wal-mart: the High Price of Low Cost and Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room again. So I looked around, asked around… and then Cuiyu found this film called Toxic Trail. I haven’t watched the film, but from its website, I found that a prominent pharmaceutical was spilling poisonous compounds in Peru. If I recall right, it was also doing the same thing in Cambodia.

What’s interesting is, every year, this same pharmaceutical holds an environmental programme for youths in Singapore, and this programme is held in pretty high regard. I believe it also has some sort of award ceremony, but I’ll need to check that up again. It has also been thanked on the National Environment Agency website.

Greenwashing? Looks like it, no? What is even more interesting to me is that most people, if not everyone, here do not know about this corporation’s darker habits nor do they want to find out. When I reveal the company’s indiscriminate actions to student environmentalists, they either shut up or say that we have to compromise (this involves not talking about this issue at all to the general public) because we need the money to carry out our environmental campaigns.

Someone in a local environmental NGO reflected a somewhat similar opinion when I pointed out a major oil company’s sponsorship of the NGO’s advertisements. "It’s blood money," it was acknowledged, but they prefer to take the money to carry out environmental outreach rather than be incapacitated by a lack of funds.

To me, this is something of a concern. We are obliged to advertise the companies’ logos on our flyers, posters, websites, etc, whenever we take their money. People who see these ads would think these companies are good companies and buy their products. The revenue from these products go towards supporting the companies’ undesirable actions. Yet, we take the money.

To be sure, we do not know if the good done by taking this money is larger than the bad done by the companies. There is no precise method to measure the good and bad done. Also, we do not know if the companies even know that they are polluting the environment and, in the process, poisoning locals who depend on the environment. Sometimes, top management may have difficulty figuring out what is happening down on the ground. For instance, Topshop was accused this year of using sweatshops. However, the guy at the top, Philip Green (styled Sir, and "largely avoids personal tax by paying dividends to his wife, Lady Tina, who lives offshore"), claims he was told by his managers that his factories were definitely not run under sweatshop conditions. True or false, it is quite possible that middle management hides some information from its bosses.

Should we blame companies for their criminal actions, then? Or should we give them the benefit of the doubt, believe that they are true and innocent at heart, and continue giving them our dollar votes and maintaining or increasing their capacity to do more of the same thing? How do we verify that what the companies say is true? I don’t have the answers. We can’t simply attack companies for their unwanted actions, because in most cases, they are great fixtures of the economy and of society. Removing them may do more harm than good. At the same time, having them continue in their malevolent ways does not bode well for a lot of people. So, what do we do?

I’m still thinking about it, but in the meantime, I take every official statement by the corporate world with a large pinch of salt and research each one of them before making any decisions. In some cases, I have been compelled to boycott their products as it weighs too heavy on my conscience for me to give them my money. In other cases, it is simply too difficult to avoid using their products.

How do you deal with this issue? 

I just had to blog this, because it seems so cute.

Work-life balance seems to be the hot topic these days. Renny and I attended the Work-Life Conference recently, and then on the 24th of July, CNA penned this little article. An excerpt:

SINGAPORE: Civil servants can look forward to a better work-life balance. An advocate and ambassador will be appointed in every public sector agency to help find the middle ground between the two worlds…

Teo Chee Hean, Defence Minister and Minister In Charge of Civil Service, said: "The Work-life Advocate will by its very name be a champion for work-life and pro-family measures.

"He will take steps to ensure that work-life policies are in place, and more importantly that these policies work for the employees as well as the organisation.

"To signal the government’s commitment, the Deputy Secretary of the Ministry will be the Work-Life Advocate."

While I want to rejoice and shout hurrah at this, a good, large pinch of salt screws my lips together and I make a bit of a grimace. Personal and secondary experience suggests caution. While exact details and past examples do not jump readily to mind (possibly because I’ve got a memory like Swiss cheese), the few friends I have asked share the same opinion. An ex-teacher, who declines to be named, informs me that in her school, there used to be this person appointed to look after teachers’ welfare. The person poked around too much, and did not contribute to anything remotely constructive. Another informant comments that the deputies who have now been made work-life advocates will "sure dulan", which in English really means that they will be extremely annoyed.

There is one fundamental issue here and it isn’t whether or not these advocates will be effective. Rather, it is the pervasive cynicism that is worth taking a gander at. The CSR Student Movement had a booth during the NUS Matriculation Fair held this week, and I spoke to a number of freshmen who questioned whether or not something like CSR would work. There were doubts and there was skepticism and beneath it all was a feeling that idealism could not work. Sometimes, it was worse. Some apparently think it is something to avoid. I start with the word "corporate" and they gasp, I say "social" and their eyes widen, and by the time I reach "responsibility", they’ve actually shoved my flyer back into my hands and run away. Literally, run away. They’re always female, interestingly. I don’t quite know why they feared CSR so much, but I conjecture that they feel about it the same way society used to feel about those hippie treehuggers and their crazy ideas. Now society knows better, what with the media propagating climate change and the hip and cool nature of environmentalism.

Anyway, this cynicism is an obstacle to not just our cause but to every other one too. It prevents people from trying to change things because they believe it is pointless to do so. And because they do not want to help out, worthy causes remain tiny. So, hopefully, the work-life advocate effectively (genuinely effectively, and not superficially, or what locals call "wayang") advocates work-life balance and achieves measurable changes for the better. It would give many people hope and then they would perhaps become more active in making the world a kinder place to live in.

That said, I think the work-life advocate is a wonderful idea and will at least give voice to people who believe that work supports life and not the other way around. Small achievement, but one nonetheless. Hurrah!

From Inter Press News:

"I think that we have to fight the Global Compact, not only criticise it, because it is a public relations operation of the big multinational companies," Ziegler told IPS.

"The 500 biggest multinational companies controlled last year 52 percent of the gross world product," the Swiss academic said. 

 And:

Greenpeace’s Mittler took the view that it is not the U.N.’s role to organise business round tables. "It is the job of the United Nations to set binding international standards and ensure that these can be, and are, enforced," he said.

"The world needs action and binding global codes for corporate behaviour," he added. "The Global Compact is not delivering."

Mittler pointed out that an analysis by McKinsey & Co., a management consultancy firm, "showed that only in 10 percent of cases was there any evidence of companies doing something that they would otherwise not have done as a result of being a member of the Global Compact."

Oliver Classen, media officer for The Berne Declaration, one of Switzerland’s oldest non-governmental organisations, called on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to "fundamentally rethink the ‘accord’ with big business."

Mittler, in turn, asked Ban "to disassociate himself from ‘greenwashing’ by the coal and nuclear industries through the Global Compact."

"The UN’s Global Compact is been a mockery because several companies violating human rights have been free to join and remain in the Global Compact, (thus) benefitting from an association with the UN," said Aftab Alam Khan, ActionAid’s head of trade. 

What do you, think, dear reader?

On the one hand, I think this has some truth in it. On the other hand, I think not everyone takes well to harsh criticism, no matter how true they are. Thus, while the aggressive stance taken by Greenpeace and other suchlike groups are extremely helpful (and really, really admirable), more moderate institutions are needed to bridge the uncomfortable gap between the critic and his findings and the companies in question. The Global Compact provides a possible platform for such a thing to happen, but it only works if it is used in that manner. I guess for now, the Global Compact is still evolving. It will find its teeth sooner or later, but be they canines, incisors or molars is really what we would like to know.

Really, hasn’t the UN as a whole been criticized for just about the exact same reasons? It has no teeth and it panders to the stronger nations, so it has been said. The Global Compact faces the same problem, doesn’t it? Not everyone can agree on how to run things, and the companies are sovereign in themselves. The UN cannot bind them to agreements so simply just as it cannot easily bind sovereign states.

Still, as is stated, 10% of companies in the McKinsey & Co. study did perform socially responsible acts as a result of joining the Global Compact. While it is very low, it’s better than 0%. Add to that what groups like Mittler’s Greenpeace do and you’ll have more than 10%. The more coaxing and pressure on companies the better. A culture will gradually develop that will make companies regulate themselves. Takes time.

Ok, here’s something else other than the problems of the Global Compact. There is an interesting article here about how technology exported from China to the USA goes back to China as e-waste which is then exported back to the USA as toxic jewellery which has caused at least one death. I think I’ll post a bit more about this if I have the time. Responsible globalization is a very important topic with this sort of thing happening more and more.