The price we pay for...

Sunday’s Oregonian had two pieces that struck me as relevant to the chapter on Leadership and Corporate Responsibility in Kolp and Rea’s work (2006). One was a public review – question of integrity – of the “double-dipping” practices of the state treasury. The other was an editorial on socially responsible investing and it very wittily it began with the story of a woman choosing how to invest – an epidemiologist whose grandfather had made money selling tobacco and candy. Her comment was that she now needed to invest responsibly, to make up for the past.

So, how does this relate to Corporate Responsibility and the triple bottom line? Can we “make up for” our behaviors or practices as individuals and corporations, or is the impact made and the rest is compensation. Is a bit of green here or human rights there or good benefits here enough… when we sell foods that deteriorate health or have practices for profit that take advantage of others? Or a more complex question, even if our positioning is relatively clear, what if the motivation for that positioning is all economic advantage? And how does a company truly add value – that works for the employees, shareholders and customers?

 

As consumers, we are paying more attention to the power of our money to shape the world. Corporations are beginning to pay attention – although, the question of corporate integrity is at stake. These are not easy-answer-issues.  The one thing that is clear is that it matters how we treat each other and the world – whether as individuals or as corporations. And, that the exchange of dollars is a voice in that equation.

Comments

[Heidi Marmen]

Quite often corporations use the buzzwords to generate interest and profit. "Organic" "Green" "Sustainable" are the sexy words currently en vogue to lure us in and spend our dollars. Quite often the words have long lost their meaning before we are able to "consume." I'm thinking of several skin care companies who boast of organic and natural ingredients - never mind they are both held by a major cosmetic conglomerate who are cultivating these "natural" ingredients in a laboratory under very unnatural circumstances. Trader Joes has built its reputation on providing organic foods at low prices. The fine print under "organic" is a often a country of origin who's standards are vastly different from our regulated terminology. DDT knows not of boundaries!
What's behind the words? Walk the talk.......

[Adele Hughes]

Derecus, I'll check out those sites. Thanks. And thanks Chris and Michelle for the comments, too. I do have to comment back, that as much as not buying at all would simplify this entangled web of enviornmental distress and human rights violations, enterprise and even capitalism play an important role in the world. If you look at countries that have incredible instability or poverty, education and enterprise offer possibility. So much more to discuss on all of this, but think of David's micro-enterpise work inHaiti or pof Heifer International or Mercy Corp. Part of the work is to have something to sell - and buy. Maybe the problem is when we move into large production, large profit, not-personal systems.... but isn't it human nature to want to grow things? Even our businesses?

[Michelle Brenes]

I agree with all of you . . . this is the heart of the matter. Decision making, motive, what the spin is, how that is verified and communicated, where money is spent and what people choose to do with their time (i.e. do you reallllllly need a new flat screen TV, or to sit in front of it 3 hours every night?), etc. It is about consciousness and behavior change. The only way we can “make up for” our behaviors, in my mind, is the same as with any other destructive, selfish, ignorant act -- understand the impact of our harmful behavior, learn from our mistakes and make a commitment to move forward with discipline, integrity and respect for all living things. Greenwashing must be watched out for (a.k.a. giving the impression of doing good for people and earth when the motivation is economic advantage or desire for respect, without true intention and behavior change). I believe we won't be able to fundamentally shift humanity's impact on the Earth until we integrate "true cost" into our economic model. True cost economics is a model that "seeks to include the cost of negative externalities into the pricing of goods and services. ...Products and activities that direct or indirectly cause harmful consequences to living beings and/or the environment should be accordingly taxed to reflect the somewhat hidden costs" (www.investopedia.com). This may never fully happen, so a critical driving force will continue to be consumers voting with their dollars (called the LOHAS consumer - see www.lohas.com/about.html for more info), using this to raise our voices until every every company in the world has no choice but to be ethical and work towards the common good. Of course the best option is to NOT BUY AT ALL . . . but that is a whole other conversation!...

[Derecus Slade]

Adele, thank you for this great post, and Chris I agree with you, we are now getting to the heart of the matter. Like I said in another post corporations are legally bound to make money, not promote social good, ethics, or politics. When they get involved in politics it's normally because they are looking out for their bottom line. For an example of this I would recommend watching the Frontline program "Obama's Deal" on PBS. You can watch it here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

I'm not sure if you guys have seen the documentary "The Corporation" but it examines corporation and looks at it in a historical aspect,and a psychological aspect when Dr. Robert Hare goes through a checklist of psychopathic traits and how a corporation rates when compared against the traits. Its a very disturbing piece. You can watch it in it's entirety here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y

I think this movie show is a great example of what society has permitted businesses to do in terms of lack of ethics.

[Chris Borne]

Ahh yes…you get to the core of the issue: follow the money and you see what people really value; at least that’s what an economics teacher once professed as an axiom of human nature. As individuals we consumers do wield great influence with our cash. How much more do corporations? In fact, one of my pet peeves, corporations in the U.S. enjoy similar rights and privileges that U.S. citizens do. Shouldn’t they be acting as such? Shouldn’t their patriotism and fidelity to us non-corporate fellow citizens be reflected in the actions they take as fellow citizens? Perhaps it’s just the unscrupulous reports we hear about but it seems that corporations’ exercise of their rights allow them great influential power in fleecing their…situations. Using the previously mentioned folk axiom of economics, following the money corporations spend should enlighten us as to what they truly value.