I wrote a few years ago that corporate social responsibility (CSR) "is mostly a faà §ade---to divert the public's eye from corporate misdeeds and corporate welfare." [1] Not that there is much of a difference in the two nouns' meaning but I write here that CSR is also a charade, the pretending of being socially responsible while being socially irresponsible.
CSR Buzz Word: The "Triple Bottom Line"
The "triple bottom line" has
become a fashionable term in corporate circles for CSR. It is strictly a buzz
word. It is also a superfluous concept. There are only two bottom lines in
accounting for any endeavor, corporate or otherwise. One is the bottom line of
behavior. The other is the bottom line of results. The first divides positive
behavior (competent, motivated and ethical) from negative behavior (incompetent,
unmotivated, and unethical). The second divides positive results (benign) from
negative (harmful) results. The merging of these two lines helps to account for
success that is ill gotten and for failure despite the very positive behavior
that preceded it. A responsible corporation penalizes, not rewards the negative
successes and appreciates, not penalizes positive failures.
The Real Meaning of CSR
CSR means 1) staying financially
viable, 2) providing socially beneficial products and/or services, 3) without
knowingly causing any physical, psychological, financial or ecological harm, 4)
without externalizing costs (e.g., job outsourcing, waste disposal), 5) without
seeking or depending on "warfare welfare" or other government favors such as
corporate personhood recognition, campaign financing, lobbying, subsidies, revolving
doors, laissez-faire regulations, or criminal immunity, 6) conducting business
ethically and legally, and 7) treating all stakeholders fairly and with
dignity. [2]
The rationale for the first
criterion is that a segment of society depends on the corporation for their
livelihood. Staying afloat is not just being financially responsible. However,
my clichà © for those corporations that meet only this criterion is that "beauty
is far more than money deep."
The rationale for rejecting
corporations mainly in the defense industry is that a compelling argument can be
made and has been made that no war is just. [3] I realize some people would regard defense contracting to be a
patriotic duty, but it is costly and dangerous patriotism ("my country right or
wrong" instead of "my country please do no wrong"). I once calculated that a
peacetime budget since the end of WWII would have saved over ten trillion
dollars, more than enough to meet pressing domestic needs. [4]
The rationale for the other criteria
is that they are hallmarks of the corpocracy. It is far more egregious than
just being socially irresponsible. It is directly responsible for America being
ranked the worst among industrialized nations on various measures such as
income inequality and unemployment; [5] for America being the most imperialistic
nation on the globe; [6] and for America being vulnerable to continuous
blowbacks from drone strikes and other forms of unending, devastating and
deadly military aggression done solely for profit and power. [7]
CROs and CROA
"CROs" aren't the countless ones
in the farmer's corn field. There are few CROs actually. I'm not exactly sure
how few, maybe somewhere between 50 and 100 (in 2007, the last year I saw
figures only 10% of the Fortune 500 had CROs).
Can you imagine being called a
CRO, short for Chief Responsibility Officer? Why would a corporation want to
pay more just to give the title CRO to someone? CFOs are wondering, too. More
than half of CFO's (short for "Chief Financial Officer") for whom corporate
money really matters, when recently surveyed were lukewarm at best about
elevating a corporate member to CRO. [8]
CROs know they need to rely on self-promotion. So they now belong to CROA, the Chief
Responsibility Officers' Association. A
survey in 2012 of CROs was not too encouraging for their kind; "CR remains a
nascent profession lacking the distinct set of professional characteristics; CR
field lacks a deliberate career path; and the progress of the corporate
responsibility officer (CRO) is continuously evolving." [9] The survey was
sponsored incidentally by CROA, and by, get this, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Business Civic Leadership Center. It's an arm of one of the wealthiest and most
powerful lobbyists for corporate
The CR Magazine
CR Magazine is published by SharedXpertise Media, LLC. Its aim is to "provide senior executives with unparalleled learning, meeting, and networking experiences on corporate responsibility, human resources and financial management." In a press release CR Magazine's publisher boasted about how its annual list of the "100 Best Corporate Citizens" is widely watched and "as a result, making the List is worth millions or even billions in increased shareholder and brand value." [10]
So CR Magazine is all about money
hustling and hype. Shareholders aren't liable for corporate criminality and
even benefit from it. Brand value is hyped by advertising and marketing
blitzes. I doubt if CR Magazine has any credibility at all to critics of
Monsanto? Really?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
