[governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio
Dan Krimm
dan at musicunbound.com
Wed Sep 19 01:52:13 EDT 2007
David,
I guess I would include public regulation as a shaping factor on the market
(violate the law, pay a price, lose profitability -- after all, with
limited liability it is still relatively rare that corporate officials
actually pay personally for legal "mistakes" ... it's the corporation that
pays some price in legal fees, cash penalties, regulatory punishments,
etc.).
The "green" movement in the US kicked up a notch in the last year as global
warming has finally gotten past the nay-sayers, and they are putting lots
of pressure not only on final products but supply chains (Nike, etc.) and
other corporate behavior.
I think one of the key issues in all of this is verification of SR claims,
to defuse the market for fraudulent claims of social responsibility.
Sometimes it is naturally verifiable, because there is a third party
involved (like a CS NPO) that can confirm, but often this is not the case
leaving room for masqueraders.
With respect to shareholders, the problem there is short-term versus
long-term profits, and publicly-held corporations have a real hard time
getting past the "next-quarteritis" that infects fickle public investing
based on things other than solid managerial practices.
I think Nnenna may have phrased things in an extreme manner, but the main
point here is to see those limits of CSR for what they are, and to be
thankful when CSR dynamics help corporations change their behavior for the
better, but not to rely on that a a sole route to progress.
I think that might yield a "consensus position" on the issue... ;-)
Dan
At 8:19 PM -0700 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote:
>Dan,
>
>You are only partially right here. For example, in Australia, and yes a
>first world example, there is a ranking for companies on their CSR. I
>can't see how the leading companies on this list actually gain
>financially. A very small proportion of the population actually takes any
>notice. They're more interested in cheap bank fees, for example, when it
>comes to banks. So yes, companies have responded to CSR as a result of
>public pressure. For example, how many Australians would know Westpac has
>been one of the leading companies for CSR for several years, and the top
>ranking bank? It would be negligible.
>
>But an even greater reason has been pressure from governments, who around
>the world are adamant they need to reduce taxes and pass on responsibility
>to companies to develop CSR programmes.
>
>My problem with this trend for governments to tax less and corporations to
>give more (in this area of CSR), either through foundations or direct
>corporate giving, is that people choose smiley cuddle programmes to fund.
>
>But I don't agree with you on the profit motive. Some areas yes, some
>areas no. And it would be a greater return for company shareholders to
>have no involvement in CSR in many cases.
>
>For example, one of the most successful charities in the UK is a donkey
>sanctuary. It's absurd! An article in The Independent in 2004 says it
>"pulls in more than £14m a year in donations, far more than charities
>such as Age Concern, Mencap or even the Samaritans. An extraordinary
>figure, given that donkeys rarely figure in our daily lives." See
>http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article46159.ece
>
>Governments are much better, generally, at choosing to fund programmes in
>their own country or others.
>
>But yes, people (individuals, government and corporations) follow areas
>where CS has first trodden. So I totally agree with you on this and your
>last 2 paragraphs. And yes, CSR has limits.
>
>David
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com>
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Sent: Wednesday, 19 September, 2007 4:54:53 AM
>Subject: Re: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio
>
>Just a quick comment on CSR and its limits.
>
>CSR is driven my market forces (demand, regulation, technology -- all
>integrated with the profit motive). The reason CSR is so hot these days is
>specifically because CS worked so hard for so long to bring commonwealth
>issues onto the public agenda, both in raw propagation of "social norms"
>and in formal regulation in the public sector. This creates demand for CSR
>inside the market, and thus it is now good business to respond to it.
>
>But make no mistake: this would *not* have happened without efforts by CS
>*outside* the market per se (advocacy, activism, policy analysis). And
>predictably, CSR is still not inclined to *lead* on these issues even now.
>Anything that has not already established itself in market forces or
>explicit regulation is still not seriously on the table for CSR generally
>(SR consultants will be the first to push back against anything that
>presents a risk to their corporate clients -- this is still about bottom
>line profits and perhaps long-term commercial sustainability).
>
>CSR is about "digesting" the movements that CS initiated and pushed, and
>occasionally got written into law or treaty. CS is the clear leader here,
>with the for-profit and public sectors following the resulting sea change
>(with the stipulation that new laws symbiotically help to support the
>evolution of social norms, and ultimately all of these dynamics reinforce
>each other in causal terms).
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>At 6:50 AM -0700 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote:
>>Nnenna,
>>
>>There is probably not a clear view on the success or otherwise of funding
>>projects from the first to the third world. Some work, some don't and some
>>are in between. But while we in the first world probably don't understand
>>this as well as we could, I don't think you really understand what CSR is
>>about.
>>
>>I see no evidence of CSR being about greed on a large scale. The points
>>you made on this no doubt have varying degrees of applicability depending
>>on the funder, and this can also be determined in part by whether it goes
>>through a foundation or not.
>>
>>One could easily argue that the problems are as much if not more the fault
>>of the regimes in varying countries, how the programmes within these
>>countries are set up and obstacles placed in the path of implementing
>>programmes.
>>
>>David
>>
>>----- Original Message ----
>>From: Nnenna <nne75 at yahoo.com>
>>To: Governance <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 11:28:12 PM
>>Subject: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio
>>
>>Hi people
>>
>>I would have loved to engage in these discussions but for time
>>constraints. Here are my quick 'tots
>>
>>Maybe if we go a step further, and try to replace Digital Divide - a
>>prooblem - with Digital Solidarity - a challenge, a responsibility - it
>>wil help shape our thinking. In this case, it will no longer be a case of
>>"them" but us. If you have access to a computer, electricity, internet
>>connection, good bandwidth and pro time to read this mail, then you are
>>already on the +ve side of the Global Digital line. The question willno
>>longer be what others should do but what you can do.
>>
>>On Access, it is easier to point out what governments should do in IT
>>infrastructure until you understand that governments themselves have been
>>roped into licence and agreement nets... In our engagement as the Free
>>Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa - FOSSFA -, we have come to
>>realize the intricate relationship among software, hardware, basic
>>infrastructure and social stability.
>>
>>Corporate Social Responsibility, as well as Direct Foreign Investment and
>>all the development talk is hinged on greed. They are all offshoot of
>>capitalism. For organiwations or individuals who fundraise in developing
>>countries, they already know that. But I am not sure it is clear to
>>others in the developed cuntries. I am yet to meet a single corporate
>>body that donates on 100 percent humanitarian purposes. Sponsors always
>>have a reason. It may not be financial at first sight, but in the end it
>>is. Some do it to prevent their competitors from doing it. So apparently
>>they do not gain; Except that at least, they would have prevented others
>>from gaining, which in a sense, is a gain. You can take this reasoning
>>from NGOs to governments...
>>
>>On Rio, I do not understand why we cannot ask a straight question on this
>>list - who is sure to be in Rio? Once it si clear who will be there, it
>>saves us the stress of playing wild cards. On another note, it might be
>>good to have a pre consultations on important issues under the themes
>>already outlined. If we have a basic list of Civil Society concerns that
>>need to be voiced in Rio, it will make the presentation of the people who
>>will represent CS easier. They could build their presenatations on the
>>fundamentals and not worry that they are misrepresenting.
>>
>>I believe that everyone is this list can contribute to Rio whether s/he
>>will be physically present or not. That, also, will be Digital Solidarity
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Nnenna
>>
>>
>><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51201/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE5NWVzZGVyBF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDYXV0b3MtbmV3Y2Fy>Check
>>out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
>>
>>
>>
>>Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
>><http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/default_all/storage/*http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html>Get
>>it now.
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
>http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list