Distribution Network
Content
Arriving at a socially responsible position is what matters, not how we get there, says Gerry Hagelberg
I don’t beat my wife. Is that because:
(a) I love her?
(b) I abhor violence?
(c) She’d create a scandal, ruining my standing in the parish, if I did?
(d) She’d retaliate and hit me on the head with a frying-pan when I’m off my guard?
For whatever reason, I behave myself. You can see that. Whether it’s because I have principles, or because I’m afraid to get clobbered, not even a shrink could say for sure.
Switch to corporate social responsibility. There’s a school of CSR ayatollahs who, at heart, aren’t happy with companies behaving themselves just because it profits them to do so and benefits their shareholders. No, it’s got to fulfil some moral obligation.
But defining ‘responsibility’ in moral terms doesn’t advance the cause of corporate responsibility one bit. It leads into philosophical quagmires. In a sense, it’s the antithesis of sustainability, since what most people see as moral obligations, whether backed by legislation or not, are not immutable (think about once prevailing attitudes concerning slavery, homosexuality, and so on). It distracts from coming to grips with the practicalities, resolving the dilemmas and devising meaningful metrics in a complex field.
Then there is the issue of regulation. If CSR rests on moral obligations, the ayatollahs are logical in arguing that it can’t be left to what is, at best, an amoral market by their view.
That’s as far as their logic goes, however. Self-regulation doesn’t work, and in any event, isn’t enough, they cry.
Of course, the market is far from perfect, and practical needs call for government regulation in many areas. But these must be carefully selected. Never is the law more of an ass than when it ventures into areas it can’t effectively police.
Taking morality to be the ultimate corporate responsibility benchmark, indiscriminate advocacy of government regulation on CSR implies an a priori belief that the state is more moral than business – an idea that is hard to swallow for many reasons.
Blanket trust in the state to keep companies in good order also betrays a lack of confidence in what non-governmental organizations, campaign groups, activists and whistle-blowers can do in this regard. It is they that have turned the spotlight on to the sweatshops in the garment industry, for instance.
Does it matter if a company cleans up its act as a public relations exercise rather than because it’s the right thing to do? That it gets done is the crux.
Gerry Hagelberg is a commodity analyst
I don’t beat my wife. Is that because:
(a) I love her?
(b) I abhor violence?
(c) She’d create a scandal, ruining my standing in the parish, if I did?
(d) She’d retaliate and hit me on the head with a frying-pan when I’m off my guard?
For whatever reason, I behave myself. You can see that. Whether it’s because I have principles, or because I’m afraid to get clobbered, not even a shrink could say for sure.
Switch to corporate social responsibility. There’s a school of CSR ayatollahs who, at heart, aren’t happy with companies behaving themselves just because it profits them to do so and benefits their shareholders. No, it’s got to fulfil some moral obligation.
But defining ‘responsibility’ in moral terms doesn’t advance the cause of corporate responsibility one bit. It leads into philosophical quagmires. In a sense, it’s the antithesis of sustainability, since what most people see as moral obligations, whether backed by legislation or not, are not immutable (think about once prevailing attitudes concerning slavery, homosexuality, and so on). It distracts from coming to grips with the practicalities, resolving the dilemmas and devising meaningful metrics in a complex field.
Then there is the issue of regulation. If CSR rests on moral obligations, the ayatollahs are logical in arguing that it can’t be left to what is, at best, an amoral market by their view.
That’s as far as their logic goes, however. Self-regulation doesn’t work, and in any event, isn’t enough, they cry.
Of course, the market is far from perfect, and practical needs call for government regulation in many areas. But these must be carefully selected. Never is the law more of an ass than when it ventures into areas it can’t effectively police.
Taking morality to be the ultimate corporate responsibility benchmark, indiscriminate advocacy of government regulation on CSR implies an a priori belief that the state is more moral than business – an idea that is hard to swallow for many reasons.
Blanket trust in the state to keep companies in good order also betrays a lack of confidence in what non-governmental organizations, campaign groups, activists and whistle-blowers can do in this regard. It is they that have turned the spotlight on to the sweatshops in the garment industry, for instance.
Does it matter if a company cleans up its act as a public relations exercise rather than because it’s the right thing to do? That it gets done is the crux.
Gerry Hagelberg is a commodity analyst
Super Featured
No
Featured
No