POLITICS AND NATURE

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has a number of different definitions. Brown (p. 1) writes about the need to change business leadership in five dimensions: “the cultural, the interpersonal, the organizational, the civic, and the environmental.” Each of these elements of corporate life must be reconsidered in light of social needs and new knowledge about corporate impacts on civic society.

Zadek writes about corporate citizenship and the need to include corporations within a higher social forum. This forum includes rules “negotiated and overseen by a spectrum of institutional arrangements and processes ranging from public scrutiny and debate through to partnerships and more traditional statutory structures” (Zadek, p. 39). CSR currently relies upon a loose set of strategies developed by numerous authors attempting to elevate social needs to the corporate agenda.

Such an elevation requires a fair amount of re-thinking on the part of corporate management. After all, leadership will not hold their jobs for long if they are unable to assuage the short term concerns directed by the board or shareholders.

Jackson and Nelson write about the traditional concepts of a divided society between the market and the government. They add, however, “a third type of institutional actor in society, namely what has become known as civil society” (Jackson and Nelson, p. 344). CSR is a corporate effort to acknowledge its responsibilities within the civil society.

We have awoken from industrialism and corporatism and imperialism to realize we do not completely like what we have created. There are so many people left out of the market oriented system and the environmental damage being concentrated among the poor around the globe is unconscionable. CSR is the industry effort to address these issues.

One of the main criticisms of corporate activity is the undue influence wealthy corporate managers have over governments around the globe. For example, the current vice president crafted our nation’s energy policy behind closed doors with the guidance of a small cadre of energy tycoons.

Many people around the world have come to realize such influence peddling and secrecy is completely unacceptable. Transparency and inclusion, therefore, are important aspects of CSR. These are difficult to achieve due to the competitive nature of capitalism and corporate need for secrecy but in governmental relations, it is absolutely necessary to keep all dialogue out in the open for the public process to discover a desirable course.

Stakeholder involvement is also tricky for the current corporate power structure. Anderson (p. 13) writes about how “corporate citizenship is defined; overall reputation, quality of management, quality of products, innovativeness, and responsibility to the community.” This last measure is the one which is most important for CSR and it emphasizes the need for inclusion.

The dominant business model for over a century has been for corporate managers to answer only to board members and shareholders. The business of business is profit and without profit, businesses fail.

What has come to light over time, however, is that business has a much more deeply ingrained meaning for the health and welfare of society. It does not simply provide jobs and goods but stability and opportunity and it relies on a healthy society in order to produce the profit its leaders seek.

The world is gone where corporate managers can dump toxics into a U.S. or Western European river or lake without fear of legal retribution. One important goal of CSR is to broaden the concept of business within the developed nations to other nations where Multinational Corporations (MNCs) operate without such restrictions.

Involving an expansive concept of who should be involved with decision making at the corporate level brings social expertise in to allow companies to understand local needs, avoid expensive litigation, and extend their sphere of influence.

NGOs, for example, are closer to communities affected by corporate actions and they are able to bring new knowledge into the process of corporate decision making. Blackburn provides an outline of how corporate managers can listen to a wide range of stakeholders when making their decisions.

He (p. 373) argues: “Good metrics, goals, monitoring systems, and reports can improve a company’s sustainability performance and make it a stronger, more competitive organization. However, to achieve superior performance, a business must do more.”

Blackburn explains how a company’s ability to listen to the needs of the community makes it great. He also shows how it is a continuous process of engagement, assessment, and improvement which will help corporate leaders learn how to interact with stakeholders and to build trust and collaboration.

CSR has the ability to motivate corporate leadership to seek new, socially beneficial, and environmentally friendly forms of seeking profits. Society can turn to the warnings and fear generated by global warming and other anthropomorphic causes for alarm to engage in heavy handed governmental regulations ensuring the survival of humanity but CSR advocates a different way.

The failures of the market based system are apparent and they are widespread. From the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal, to Wal-Mart’s seedy efforts to avoid payments for health insurance, to the U.S. automakers efforts to continually promote the biggest, most inefficient vehicles possible, we see market failures and we have realized the effects these have had on social welfare.

There needs to be a more comprehensive dialogue over the role of business within society and how to make MNCs adhere to one of the many options available which contain the seeds of the CSR movement.