Why Robert Reich Is Right About Corporate Social Responsibility
I was going through Infosys blogs where I stumbled upon this article by Mark Kramer on why Reich is Wrong on CSR.
I admire Mark Kramer because of the work he has been doing along with Micheal Porter, but on CSR I have kind of mixed view of both Kramer and Reich.
Corporates are operated for profit. In my opinion, CSR is being used as another "marketing campaign " by the organizations rather then it being a conscious effort to bring in some real change.
For e.g. Philip Morris as part of CSR, will ever stop making cigarettes? Will Dow Chemicals and other chemical industry stop producing dangerous chemicals so as to save the environment? Will the manufacturers of SUV's stop producing it right away, so that there is complete stop of those fuel guzzling monsters?
Answer is no, a big NO. We as humans, will never do anything which affects the 'profits' for which the organizations have been created or in fact which in any way affects to our comfort.
Right now what is happening is we continue to contribute in the destruction of earth and on the other hand we try to reverse "some %" of that destruction. Is that right? That is what corporates have to ask themselves and if they really want to change the way Earth is getting destroyed, do something which really helps by changing themselves so that max of the damage is not caused.
This is true in IT companies too here in India. Every company is talking about CSR and some are taking it seriously, but for me that looks more to be "good boy" campaign so that they can "differentiate" themselves in this competitive world. Just last week I was reading an article in Times of India - Chennai edition, where they mentioned how IT companies are resisting the idea of having common buses for employees instead of each company having individually hundreds of buses. The reason why they are resisting is that they fear "their employees" being poached.
So here we see, on one hand we are talking about CSR, but on the other hand if we perceive any 'threat' we turn our face away, looking at the other side.
We have to remember, we don't have much time. This Earth which have survived for millions of years, might not be in position to support future generations if we continue with our destruction like this. Some scientists say we have only a decade left before we see irreversible changes happening. Other argue that these calculations are wrong, well what if these first set of scientists are right? Will these second set if scientists guarantee that they will bring earth to its previous state?
It's high time that we start looking at CSR seriously, not with any profit angle but with ways of saving the earth even if it means forgoing profits.
I admire Mark Kramer because of the work he has been doing along with Micheal Porter, but on CSR I have kind of mixed view of both Kramer and Reich.
Corporates are operated for profit. In my opinion, CSR is being used as another "marketing campaign " by the organizations rather then it being a conscious effort to bring in some real change.
For e.g. Philip Morris as part of CSR, will ever stop making cigarettes? Will Dow Chemicals and other chemical industry stop producing dangerous chemicals so as to save the environment? Will the manufacturers of SUV's stop producing it right away, so that there is complete stop of those fuel guzzling monsters?
Answer is no, a big NO. We as humans, will never do anything which affects the 'profits' for which the organizations have been created or in fact which in any way affects to our comfort.
Right now what is happening is we continue to contribute in the destruction of earth and on the other hand we try to reverse "some %" of that destruction. Is that right? That is what corporates have to ask themselves and if they really want to change the way Earth is getting destroyed, do something which really helps by changing themselves so that max of the damage is not caused.
This is true in IT companies too here in India. Every company is talking about CSR and some are taking it seriously, but for me that looks more to be "good boy" campaign so that they can "differentiate" themselves in this competitive world. Just last week I was reading an article in Times of India - Chennai edition, where they mentioned how IT companies are resisting the idea of having common buses for employees instead of each company having individually hundreds of buses. The reason why they are resisting is that they fear "their employees" being poached.
So here we see, on one hand we are talking about CSR, but on the other hand if we perceive any 'threat' we turn our face away, looking at the other side.
We have to remember, we don't have much time. This Earth which have survived for millions of years, might not be in position to support future generations if we continue with our destruction like this. Some scientists say we have only a decade left before we see irreversible changes happening. Other argue that these calculations are wrong, well what if these first set of scientists are right? Will these second set if scientists guarantee that they will bring earth to its previous state?
It's high time that we start looking at CSR seriously, not with any profit angle but with ways of saving the earth even if it means forgoing profits.
No comments:
Post a Comment