Distribution Network
Content
Politicians have a role to play in CSR that extends far beyond introducing regulation, says Eric Biel
In discussions on the role of government in CSR, government is all too often characterized as a heavy-handed regulator, allowing critics to juxtapose the flexible and forward-looking mechanisms of voluntary self-regulation. Such is the framing offered in the recent EP article by Conservative Party leader David Cameron under the rather dramatic heading ‘don’t allow CSR to become a state-led leftist agenda’.
To be sure, there is truth in some of what Cameron says. It is hard to argue with his point that ‘the more that companies voluntarily adopt responsible business practices, the more compelling the case for a lighter touch on regulatory inspection and enforcement.’ Others, notably Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby, take a different route to reach a similar conclusion. Arguing that businesses are filling a void left by government’s inability to address policy issues in areas such as labour and environmental standards, Mallaby believes that the next stage ‘may be for companies not merely to outpace government but to pull government along’. Fair enough – but this greatly oversimplifies the fact that government has quite varied roles to play in advancing CSR.
Consider the portfolio of Sweden’s ambassador for corporate social responsibility, Elisabeth Dahlin, who both co-ordinates government initiatives and helps promote best practice in the private sector. She has used the Swedish Partnership for Global Responsibility to make CSR a tool of her country’s foreign policy in a very pro-business manner.
Even in the US, where interest in government engagement is decidedly cooler than in Europe, it is worth considering the many roles that government has still managed to play. In terms of multi-stakeholder initiatives like the Fair Labor Association and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, the US government has been both initiator and incubator – helping keep alive efforts that face strong opposition from some interests. The State Department has convened different stakeholders and along with the Labor Department has funded private sector-led projects, while the Agency for International Development collaborates in public-private development partnerships. And, as a new Democrat Congress slowly pays more attention to CSR, it shows some interest in oversight through hearings and reports on which mechanisms work and which fall short.
Certainly government could regulate in areas where voluntary approaches are ineffective. But that is unlikely to be the starting point or preferred route. For while the US Government has a lot of catching up to do, its engagement more likely will focus on how to make voluntary initiatives work better, saving regulation for genuine cases of ‘market failure’.
Eric Biel is managing director of corporate responsibility at Burson-Marsteller in Washington, DC
In discussions on the role of government in CSR, government is all too often characterized as a heavy-handed regulator, allowing critics to juxtapose the flexible and forward-looking mechanisms of voluntary self-regulation. Such is the framing offered in the recent EP article by Conservative Party leader David Cameron under the rather dramatic heading ‘don’t allow CSR to become a state-led leftist agenda’.
To be sure, there is truth in some of what Cameron says. It is hard to argue with his point that ‘the more that companies voluntarily adopt responsible business practices, the more compelling the case for a lighter touch on regulatory inspection and enforcement.’ Others, notably Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby, take a different route to reach a similar conclusion. Arguing that businesses are filling a void left by government’s inability to address policy issues in areas such as labour and environmental standards, Mallaby believes that the next stage ‘may be for companies not merely to outpace government but to pull government along’. Fair enough – but this greatly oversimplifies the fact that government has quite varied roles to play in advancing CSR.
Consider the portfolio of Sweden’s ambassador for corporate social responsibility, Elisabeth Dahlin, who both co-ordinates government initiatives and helps promote best practice in the private sector. She has used the Swedish Partnership for Global Responsibility to make CSR a tool of her country’s foreign policy in a very pro-business manner.
Even in the US, where interest in government engagement is decidedly cooler than in Europe, it is worth considering the many roles that government has still managed to play. In terms of multi-stakeholder initiatives like the Fair Labor Association and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, the US government has been both initiator and incubator – helping keep alive efforts that face strong opposition from some interests. The State Department has convened different stakeholders and along with the Labor Department has funded private sector-led projects, while the Agency for International Development collaborates in public-private development partnerships. And, as a new Democrat Congress slowly pays more attention to CSR, it shows some interest in oversight through hearings and reports on which mechanisms work and which fall short.
Certainly government could regulate in areas where voluntary approaches are ineffective. But that is unlikely to be the starting point or preferred route. For while the US Government has a lot of catching up to do, its engagement more likely will focus on how to make voluntary initiatives work better, saving regulation for genuine cases of ‘market failure’.
Eric Biel is managing director of corporate responsibility at Burson-Marsteller in Washington, DC
Super Featured
No
Featured
No