Corporate Social Responsibility around the world

The conference I attended last week was all about the media’s role in Corporate Social Responsibility. It raised some interesting questions (“How should/can the media cover CSR?” “How can media corporations engage in CSR themselves?”) and created a nice dialogue on the subject, but I felt that all in all, it left me without too many answers. Though to the conference’s credit, this probably isn’t its fault – this is clearly a tricky and emerging area, and it’s often unclear what kind of moral obligations are at play here.

Ethical responsibilities aside, companies across the world are creatively finding ways to have positive social impacts that also increase their bottom lines by doing things such as

• Reducing costs (and negative environmental impact) through recycling efforts and increased efficiency of resource use
• Creating higher-quality and more consistent input/labor supplies by investing in their supply chains (e.g. Starbucks’ work with coffee farmers) and education in local communities
• Marketing their “socially responsible” actions to consumers who care, giving them an edge over competition

Check out these fascinating reports on the benefits of CSR – they’re by Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, and the UN, and are quite good reads.

This is something that is just starting to register on the developed world’s radar screens, and is often considered even less in the developing world. However, there can be special benefits to undertaking such initiatives here; for instance, showing off corporate responsibility can help overcome foreign skepticism for companies located in post-communist countries, attracting foreign investment and enabling lower financing costs and risk premiums. An important first step to realizing these benefits is recognizing that they exist, so media really does have the potential to help push CSR forward by raising awareness.

Learn more about CSR in the region in the most recent issue of the UNDP and LSE’s joint publication “Development & Transition.” While you’re there, check out two even more interesting articles: one questioning the good microfinance is really doing in Southeast Europe, and the other debating the merits and limitations of introducing “countercyclical financial instruments” in transition economies – for instance, linking returns on government bonds to GDP in order to share risk with investors, keep debt/GDP ratios relatively stable, and reduce likelihood of debt and currency crises. Interesting idea, right?

Last thought on the CSR tip. I just finished reading Don DeLillo’s Underworld and the first paragraph of the epilogue struck me:

“Capital burns off the nuance in a culture. Foreign investment, global markets, corporate acquisitions, the flow of information through transnational media, the attenuating influence of money that’s electronic and sex that’s cyberspaced, untouched money and computer-safe sex, the convergence of consumer desire – not that people want the same things, necessarily, but that they want the same range of choices.”

Now I’m obviously not of the anti-globalization camp, and I certainly wouldn’t want to limit people’s choices just to force them to “keep their culture” – but I am saddened by the thought of diminishing our world’s amazing cultural diversity. This raises the question of whose responsibility it is to protect tradition midst the increasing flows of capital eroding “cultural nuance” in our ever-globalizing world. Do the companies bringing the capital have some sort of obligation here? Or should governments intervene in some way? One could definitely argue that in a free market, culture will remain intact to the extent that people value it so we shouldn’t worry – but I fear this is a somewhat short-sighted view. People’s choices may optimize their own utility but not that of future generations, for instance. In this case, what responsibility do companies/governments/citizens have in protecting cultures without blocking personal freedoms? I have to think about this one….