Let's move beyond CSR towards corporate obligation. As a condition of operation in society and earth corporations have more than just responsibilities. These responsibilities arise from legal, business, government and consumer forces. These forces interact and create the balance of freedom and regulation that we refer to as the market. I would suggest that the market in which corporations are acting today is not an optimal one from any perspective other than the shareholders of corporations.

First a note, I do not mean to imply that corporations are inherently evil or that they must be destroyed. Rather, the legal and political environment in which they act should be changed to make corporations a benefit to society. For example, corporations are excellent ways of organizing production and spreading risk across a wide group of willing risk takers.

Externalities may, unfortunately, distort the idealized market of Adam Smith and lead to over production of environmental and human rights "bads" and under production of social welfare "goods". These distortions arise because the corporation may not have to bear the cost of pollution or of human rights abuses that they cause. At the same time they may not invest sufficiently in roads or education because they will not be able to capture the complete benefits. Government regulation can play a role in correcting market imbalances; however, corporate power, privatization of government roles and globalization have undermined the ability of governments to regulate.

One response to these conditions is the Corporate Social Responsibility movement. The question is whether CSR, a primarily voluntary commitment by corporations to higher responsibility, will change corporate behavior or just be a PR move. There are already a bevy of terms to describe CSR: CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), CR (Corporate Responsibility), CC (Corporate Citizenship), CS (Corporate Sustainability). When combined with a wide range of standards (http://www.business-humanrights.org/Home), this can either be a hugely positive sign or to the cynic another example of corporate marketing lingo.

We could debate both sides of the CSR debate and come to a conclusion that standards should be either voluntary or mandatory. Voluntary standards can be stepping stones towards higher standards that do not require consensus. Mandatory standards will be enforceable and universal thus creating a level playing field. However, if the evaluation of these

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about Corporate social responsibility??
We want to hear your view. Write now!