Ethical consumption

[Karl]

As long as you don't post threads with visa restrictions for Asians, Africans, Europeans or any other non-Australians, you should be fine...

[Claire]

Karl, I think you are leaping to quite a lot of conclusions here which aren't really justified. This guy isn't asking for your home address and he's not asking you not to post, just to say what country you're in. Anyone can look at what you choose to put in your profile, it's public, so it's not snooping. Public perceptions and views on CSR are an interesting and legitimate research topic IMO. And anyway, in what way can it possibly be a bad thing for companies to want to engage with CSR?

A lot of people do use forums as a research tool, and personally I think that's better research than using multiple-choice questionnaires for this kind of thing - although personally I prefer to do my research face-to-face, but a PhD gives you the luxury of more time and space for that kind of thing.

Anyway Linden - I think you have some quite cynical views of CSR here. I think it is like anything - there are some companies that are cynical in their use of it, some that are trying but rather half-heartedly, some that are genuinely keen but mis-informed or struggling to find information, and some that are really embracing it.

I see quite a lot of companies that do "random acts of benevolence" wrt their local community, but do not really seem to assess the actual impact of their business on the local community. That is quite a big ask and takes a brave set of people to really engage with it.

Finally I would like to add that I'd much prefer to do business with companies that are really addressing CSR but it's quite hard for a consumer to get information about this stuff. Ethical consumer magazine does quite a good job of it though and I keep thinking I should subscribe.

Good luck with the research and please keep the debate going

[bruce]

You may already have come across it, but the Economist had a good study into CSR at the start of the year.

Just good business | Economist.com

The basic conclusion seems to be that whilst many companies do CSR well, for many it remains a fashionable thing to do as opposed to something intrinsic in the company's makeup.

Personally speaking I think Morgan Friedman had it about right. The only responsibility a company has is to turn a profit, and through that they deliver good to society.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Claire

Karl, I think you are leaping to quite a lot of conclusions here which aren't really justified. This guy isn't asking for your home address and he's not asking you not to post, just to say what country you're in. Anyone can look at what you choose to put in your profile, it's public, so it's not snooping. Public perceptions and views on CSR are an interesting and legitimate research topic IMO. And anyway, in what way can it possibly be a bad thing for companies to want to engage with CSR?

I was not suggesting in any way that CSR is bad in principle, however...

The primary and fundamental issue here is posting threads in the public area of the discussion forums, and attempting to set restrictions on who can reply. He explicitly and categorically made that statement. If one was to carefully read, thoughtfully contemplate and thoroughly understand the content and intent of his messages - the justification for the conclusions (and more) is quite evident.

While obviously, he cannot actually prevent anybody from replying - it is clearly inappropriate and unacceptable for him to even make such a suggestion. I mean, encouraging that sort of precedent would an extremely "slippery slope".

Whether or not he is conducting research on a topic that is "interesting and legitimate", there is no basis for making an exception in this case; what would happen to the forum if everybody tried to start topics, but said they do not want the participation of anybody from (for example) South Pacific or African or Slavic Countries, and so forth...

If making such an exception (i.e., a thread with restricted participation) was in some way beneficial to the forum, the position would be different. But there is no basis for exception and reply restrictions in this case, since his "proposition - after - the - fact" does NOT benefit the forum; it is disruptive to the cohesive functionality of this website community, while putatively benefiting the research aims of a single individual and the organisation which he represents.

If that particular institution has contributed in a meaningful way to TES, once again the position would be modified; but unless and until there is some tangible evidence of such being reality, websites of this nature cannot realistically be run for the benefit of the research aims of an individual/institution, at the expense of the majority of the active members (bearing in mind at all times that the reputation, feasibility, sustainable viability and continued existence of websites like this depends entirely upon user-generated content).

Do not disregard the fact that even with all the funding in the world, and the highest search engine page-rank possible, a forum would serve no purpose and accomplish nothing, if there are no site visitors or no active members generating content (voluntarily and at their own expense). The members can continue to exist without this website, but the sad reality is that this website cannot continue to exist without members.

In that context, what is wrong is wrong regardless of the circumstances, and wherever and in whatever form it arises WILL be stopped.

I am not being unreasonable. I agree that he should continue with his "research" in CSR, but he will simply need to find some other means of doing so.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by Claire

I think you have some quite cynical views of CSR here.

I think that alot of the most genuine companies that are serious about their impacts have the philospohy at the heart of their business operations and decisions, rather than just creating a 'CSR' department or side policy. These companies often don't seem to brand their activities as CSR.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by spadlet

I think that alot of the most genuine companies that are serious about their impacts have the philospohy at the heart of their business operations and decisions, rather than just creating a 'CSR' department or side policy. These companies often don't seem to brand their activities as CSR.

Yes, i think that's probably right - it's a theme that's come up with my own research too - why have a separate department if CSR is so deeply engrained you expect everyone in the company to consider it? I also think there is a legitimate concern from companies about appearing to "greenwash" - if they publicise their CSR efforts then they might be taken to be adopting them simply for advertising purposes, or it might spark a debate about why they're not doing more if they're still working on improving it.

Karl, I'll reply to you in the feedback thread you started so as not to confuse this one

[ethics01]

Dear all,

Due to the abusive and threatening posts by one member of this forum I will no longer be engaged with this site. Thank you for your comments so far.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by ethics01

Dear all,

Due to the abusive and threatening posts by one member of this forum I will no longer be engaged with this site. Thank you for your comments so far.

That’s unfortunate. I had all this CSR information lined up for you:

From:

Bangladesh: The New Nation - Internet Edition
Jamaica: Jamaica Gleaner News - Social responsibility is good business - Sunday | July 20, 2008
Botswana: allAfrica.com: Botswana: Saber to Consult Communities On Gas Project (Page 1 of 1)
And much more (even from those barbarous Ostrogothic territories)

You might have actually learned something. Oh well…

[JoshuaSBK]

Originally Posted by CRTreeDude

Of course a business must turn a profit, but its pursuit of profit cannot be while sacrificing the people of the community.

Absolutely! Even better though is a business that makes its profit by contributing directly to the health and welfare of this planet. Shorebank, whom I represent, actually follows a triple bottom line. They are committed to building stronger communities and creating a healthier environment as much as they are to helping their customers make a profit. They specifically focus on communities whose housing values and incomes fall below the median range of the region. ShoreBank has proven that corporate responsibility doesn't have to be a marketing gimmick - but a business model that achieves financial success."

Organizations like the Eco-Justice Collaborative have benefited from ShoreBank's expertise in financial matters through its Nonprofit Service Center. Please check them out at sbk.com. People. Planet. And profit. That's the ShoreBank mission.

[sfaoldguy]

Originally Posted by ethics01

Thank you for your comments so far. Remaining on the subject of CSR, then, how important do you think CSR is in the food industry in particular, and to what extent do you think it is imperative that companies in the food industry are socially responsible?

Linden Reekie

This may not make me a lot of friends here, but I believe the job of businesses is to make money by providing goods and services we the comsumers demand (period).

Some may argue the economic inefficiencies to society as a whole due to the external costs incurred by those outside of the market decision demand that businesses act in a responsible manner to society as a whole. It is the job of government to address these market failures through regulations and enforcement. It is the job of individual consumers to decide how important the men, women, and children along the Yangtze River, and others in similar situations, are to them. Is saving a few cents worth the loss of their water supply? If not, these consumers will demonstrate their demand by buying more expensive products from companies with environmentally friendly practices or they will petition the government to enact legislation to alter the practices.

In short, it's the job of business to give us what we want at the price we want. If a business' practices are destroying the environment, then there are plenty of people out there that do not know or do not care. Likewise, if a business' practices are environmentally friendly, it is because the consumers demanded such through their purchase decisions or consumers and/or those outside of the market decision petitioned government.

I know the above is a simplification of the issues, but it is a rule of thumb.