wide eyed wonderings of the undecided

Flick through a copy of The Guardian or The Independent, Britain’s leading left-leaning newspapers and at some point you’ll find a brightly coloured, friendly looking advert from one of the worlds largest corporations, emphasising their unwavering commitment to social responsibility.

By 2003 there were 69,000 transnational corporations in existence with at least 29 big enough to be counted among the world’s 100 largest economies. Institutions ranging from the British government to the UN concede that corporations are central organisers of the emerging global economy. Most would suggest that if these corporations are committing and even competing to strive for social responsibility, society as a whole must benefit.

With climate change and carbon footprints the current hobby-horse of the ethical consumer we are seeing companies pile cash into their CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) and PR budgets. While BP travelled beyond petroleum, British Gas teamed up with The Guardian to inform us about “greener living”. However there is growing concern that by letting corporations determine the meaning of ethical and responsible, we are submitting further power to an already dominant force.

The relationship between business and society has always been a point of contention. Whilst the left agonizes over the social costs of a limitless profit drive, the right is constantly looking over its shoulder at ‘big government,’ fearing the efficiency losses of social intervention in business. Whilst in the past global corporations could act in relative autonomy, today increased media visibility and a growing ethical concern amongst consumers means many corporations are now dedicating entire departments to their social image and CSR programmes.

In the majority world (developing world) corporations play a central role in shaping the communities that work for them. Schools, hospitals, transport links and even housing are all developed as part of a voluntary CSR programmes. At the same time, and often in the same area these very corporations face criticism for environmental damage, unacceptable working conditions and in the case of Shell and Coca-Cola, murder. A Christian Aid report on the subject found that “some of those shouting the loudest about their corporate virtues are also among those inflicting continuing damage on communities where they work – particularly poor communities.”

Corporations have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximise their profits. All CSR pursuits that hinder that ultimate motive will be scrapped or poorly implemented. Shell, who began their CSR programme in response to severe criticism for the death of trade union and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, were found to have a “dysfunctional development programme… not used to help communities, but as a payoff for access to land.” Amid BP’s commitment to sustainability and environment is little mention of the 570 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, roughly the entire emissions of the UK, its Oil and Gas extracts produce. Even the Commission for Africa, often dismissed as a cosy partner of corporations and governments, suggested that CSR was ‘a mere PR exercise’.

The danger of this is that as corporations play a greater role in shaping society, particularly in providing public resources as they do in the majority world, they gain greater power and immunity from civil society. What pressure can people, often employees place, on an unelected body? The voluntary nature of CSR also lends legitimacy to their dominant place in society.

Whilst corporations decide on the extent to which actions are socially responsible, civil society has no voice in raising their concerns. There is a danger that CSR programs will follow what is deemed ‘newsworthy’ to consumers in the minority world. In a study of 20 CSR codes of conduct, it was found that while 18 included a commitment not to use child labour, only 10 referred to a living wage and only 2 to reproductive rights. Furthermore various issues known to be problematic such as physical abuse, toilet breaks and safe transport home from workplaces were not made reference to at all. In the west we were lucky enough to secure these rights before business volunteered to determine them for us.

In CSR designed education programmes how likely is it that social issues such as workers rights, and environmental studies will be dealt with in an entirely informative and neutral way. Campaigners also worry that certain issues will lie outside of the CSR frame of debate and will never be properly engaged with. The business and capital logic of free-enterprise and the dominance of English as the legitimate language of global business, for example will not only go unchallenged but reinforced by the increased prominence and importance of CSR.

As we become increasingly aware of the impact of business on our social and environmental lives, we have a duty to pull political power away from the corporations who, after making a mess are intent on cleaning it up their way. The only way society will be served is if it takes its own action, in partnership with government and through close regulation of business and industry. Corporations are desperately trying to offset their damage; it is not possible and not welcome.