On Corporate Social Responsibility

July 16, 2007

Global Compact Smacked

Filed under: CSR in general, Standards, World - Alexander @ 2:03 am

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.

July 14, 2007

Greenwashing Grows

Filed under: Corporate governance, Environment, Standards - Alexander @ 3:34 am

Cuiyu had a little bit of a skeptical post on greenwashing some time ago. It’s a very important topic, considering how environmentalism is on the rise at least in terms of consumer awareness. From the New York Times via CorpWatch:

"Home Depot sent a note a few months ago to the companies that supply the 176,000 products it sells, inviting them to make a pitch to have their products included in its new Eco Options marketing campaign.

More than 60,000 products — far more than obvious candidates like organic gardening products and high-efficiency lightbulbs — suddenly developed environmental star power.

Plastic-handled paint brushes were touted as nature-friendly because they were not made of wood. Wood-handled paint brushes witere promoted as better for the planet because they were not made of plastic.

An electric chainsaw? Green, because it was not gas-powered. A bug zapper? Ditto, because it was not a poisonous spray. Manufacturers of paint thinners, electrical screwdrivers and interior overhead lights claimed similar bragging rights simply because their plastic or cardboard packaging was recyclable.

“In somebody’s mind, the products they were selling us were environmentally friendly,” said Ron Jarvis, a Home Depot senior vice president who oversees the Eco Options program."

Full article here. Consumers beware.
 
Consumers need to know more about things in general in order to make proper choices about the things they buy, but with today’s daily information overload and the huge tons of work each of us take on everyday, who has the time to read and attempt to understand so much? Yet, we must, because if we don’t we continue contributing to the deteriorating earth. So, what can be done?
 
It’s 4.30am here and I’m really bushed, so, I shall leave you, dear reader, to ponder that all by yourself. Goodnight!

July 13, 2007

CSRSM Annual Report 2007

Filed under: CSR in general, Singapore, Events, Administration - Alexander @ 12:05 pm

This comes a little late, but at least it’s here now. Our Annual Report can be found here. It is downloadable as a PDF file.

I think we made some headway last year in introducing CSR into NUS. Not much headway, but still some. At least now there is wider awareness of the acronym "CSR". The way I see it, there are a number of problems why it is so difficult to ppopularize this and other ideas.

1. Students are extremely busy with studies, work and what little personal lives they have left.

2. After so much studying and working, they want to relax, not read about more ideas.

3. There is not enough free time in the NUS calendar to allow students to explore things other than what’s in their modules.

4. There are too many activity groups in NUS vying for the tiny community’s attention.

5. Many students are materialistic, so unless they stand to gain from an idea, they’ll not want to waste time on it.

How do we go about solving these problems? I’m thinking of getting internships for the Movement’s members, asking companies, certain government agencies and NGO’s to let us try implementing CSR and business strategies for them (helps them and gives us practice), and also getting us into a position to organise sharing and networking sessions for companies. These will allow our members to have practical experience and expand the individual’s network, which I think are what students nowadays want.

Another idea is to make things more fun, but I can’t think how CSR can be made fun. 

I am also in the process of getting as many groups in NUS as possible to come together to make an on-line calendar of events wherein we project all our events for the year and so be able to see where there is too much competition or chances for collaboration. That would lessen rivalry, hopefully.

Maybe one day, we can get credits in our modules for doing such CSR activities. That would be great. But that’s kind of a far-off wish at the moment.

Well, if there are any ideas floating around out there, do tell us about them. We are always seeking to overcome our challenges and improve. 

July 9, 2007

The State of Responsible Competitiveness

Filed under: CSR in general, Corporate governance, Asia - Alexander @ 1:03 pm

There’s been a spike in reports of corporate responsibility recently. UN News Service has one on how CSR helped companies "achieve and retain market leadership". Inter Press News has one on the "hazy" impact of the Global Compact. CSR Asia has one on how irresponsible countries may lose out on a USD$750 billion market. The Herald Tribune has one on the increase in toxic Chinese exports. CorpWatch (via the Inter Press News) has one on how investment firms are being pushed to act responsibly for a terrible mudslide from a gas project they funded. There’s also one in the Wall Street Journal about how Singapore’s Temasek Holdings is feeling international pressure to become more transparent, but I can’t link that because it’s a paid read and I’m too poor to pay for it. Thanks to Professor Montesano for showing it to me.

So, we have some good news and some bad news. Hopefully, over time, the good news will outnumber the bad news. We’ve got another piece of good news to encourage everyone with. Very nice folks at the Glasshouse Partnership (thanks!) have informed us of AccountAbility’s report, summarized on their website thus:

"The State of Responsible Competitiveness 2007: Making Sustainability Count in Global Markets is essentially a progress report on countries’ efforts in advancing competitiveness based on responsible business practices. It provides a unique health check on responsible globalization."

You can download the full PDF report, or take a look at their Responsible Competitiveness World Map, which ranks countries according to how responsibly competitive they are (makes sense, right?). Singapore didn’t come off too bad. We’re 15th. China is 87th (I’m quite scared of their food exports now and my father’s stopped eating snacks from there). Here’s a brief SEAsian view:

Malaysia is 25th, Thailand 37th, Indonesia 48th, Philippines 61st, Cambodia 99th. No news on Laos, Vietnam, Burma, Brunei and East Timor. How strange. Well, at least we know Singapore isn’t all that bad. 15th! Still, there is enormous space for improvement.

News reports on AccountAbility’s report can be found in The Guardian and in Reuters.

All right, folks, it’s lunchtime for me. I shall now go and chew my veggies and wonder from which country they came and which farmer or company grew them, and where my spoons and bowls and cups come from and if all these companies have been good or bad. Bon appetit!

"He’s making a list, and checking it twice…"

July 7, 2007

Interview by The Graduate

Filed under: CSR in general - Alexander @ 12:25 pm
I was interviewed 20 May 2007 by The Graduate magazine for an article on social compact. Here it is without any editing so please pardon the minor grammatical errors:
 
1. What is your personal definition and concept of CSR and how does it apply to the individuals within your generation?

Broadly speaking, CSR is the practice of ethics in the company’s activities. It is important that a company behaves ethically because a company’s actions, just like those of any individual, have repercussions in society. Since people spend so much time working and quite nearly all the products we purchase come from nature directly or indirectly, there is definitely reason to keep a tight eye over the ways in which companies interact with the societies and environments in which they are situated.

2. What do you see are the perceptions with CSR and social compact in today’s society? Is enough being done?

Society is an amalgamation of different groups of people. CSR is probably perceived differently by these different groups, if at all. Since my primary habitat is the university, it is difficult for me to completely discern the perceptions of groups that are not situated there. Even understanding perceptions of university students is not easy since perception is determined not simply by the present state of events but also by the personal histories of the individuals. In my limited interactions with people, however, I think I have perceived at least four broad sets of perceptions. Those from the corporate world who attend seminars and conferences seem to find CSR a much wanted idea and possibly also a profitable endeavour. Students are divided into two groups: those who think CSR is simply a public relations tool and there is not much real good done therefore and those who believe that even though CSR is partly a public relations tool, it is nevertheless a way via which society can be made better. Then, there are those, among them a number of academics, who believe that while CSR is an ideal worth pursuing, not all companies can practice it to profit. Extant evidence, said Professor Joseph Galaskiewicz in a recent talk in the NUS Business School, does not suggest that CSR is always good for business. I have left out, of course, the perceptions of CSR of groups like food sellers in food centres and construction workers, and these people too are affected by corporate activity.

Similarly, the idea of the Social Compact means different things to different people. Does society even exist, or are we a loosely bonded hodgepodge of communities, each with its own compact? There is recognition among university students that some form of a social construct exists, that certain social norms dominate, but whether or not we understand how we contribute to the present state of society, that is, our compact with it, is a different matter altogether. The widespread sentiment seems to be that Singaporeans are apathetic and apathy is therefore deeply ingrained in society. I do not think so. Granted, there are a great many who are "apathetic" (I prefer to break this up into resignation and exhaustion but the arguments behind this and how they can be mitigated must be left for another time) but as I have found out first-hand, there are also those who want to and actively work for change for the better in society. These more energetic persons believe that culture is forever in flux and that therefore change is always a distinct possibility, and that their role is to facilitate that change.

There really is no proper way to measure whether or not enough is being done. It would certainly be wonderful if more is done- reach out to the secondary level students, bring the message to SME’s, consolidate a database of information on everything about CSR in the local context- but how fast the movement runs along depends on a number of factors, including like time and capital invested. It would really help, for instance, at the university level, if students allocated themselves more time for things other than academia. It would also help if instead of treating society as though it were a homogeneous whole, we break it up into smaller, manageable social groups and try to understand the perceptions of these groups and then cast strategies to spread the idea of CSR or social compact in that light.

3. How do we overcome obstacles to these mis-perceptions with regards to CSR and Social Compact?

I hesitate to call any perception at this time as a mis-perception since many perceptions have valid arguments. The problem comes when people try to find a perception or definition they can agree on. The question is, do we really need to agree on just one? For practical purposes, like in the planning of an event, or the setting up of a club, it might be important, for the perception of things and the definition of those things play a great role in the directions of such events or clubs. However, because society is so large, and has so many actors on the scene, it is not quite possible to get everyone to agree on a single perception or definition. Moreover, it is probable that each social group has good uses for its own definition or perception. If we want a unified view, however, then further dialogue in the public domain is required in order to engage as many stakeholders as possible, a process that will take some time.

4. What do you envision is the future for CSR and Social Compact?

I think in the long run, say a hundred years or more, civilisation is moving in a general direction, and that is towards greater social well-being. Broadly speaking, the material wealth of nations has increased through the ages but happiness levels have not followed suit. I think there is now a movement in gestation that seeks to bring about happiness for the individual rather than simply satisfy his or her material wants. CSR and Social Compact have big roles to play in this future. Corporations and people are, after all, big players in society. Corporations have to figure out how to stay profitable without alienating their employees or affecting their suppliers and the natural environment adversely. At this time, not all companies can do that. People have to understand that they are active contributors to the state of society whether or not they choose to be. By virtue of the very fact that they live in society, their daily actions, as mundane as eating, drinking, dressing up and showering, have an accumulative impact on the environment. People cannot escape affecting the world. The way they relate to each other at home, in school, in the workplace and in public spaces determine the culture of society. Will people smile at each other or look dourly away in our future together? This is where the Social Compact comes in. In order for a, for want of a better word, happy world to come into being faster, people have to recognise these inescapable facts and align their behaviour accordingly, and in a way they are comfortable with. These will take a long time. CSR and Social Compact will remain useful for that time.

Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome
Theme designed by Alex King