CSR =/= Corporations saving the world

Corporations can have a very clearly political role -- easily. But even when it is just their normal everyday operation, beyond politics, its impact on society and the world around you may still be very significant. On such occasions their being beyond politics is itself a problem so politics may have to get up, reach out and touch them, and do something about it.

Recently in the news: Uber paid off hackers to get them to destroy stolen consumer data (belonging to some 57 million users), and even wanted guarantees from them that they will not disclose their theft. Facebook still can't handle (and consequently serves) advertisers in the housing sector who discriminate on a racist basis. After Kobe Steel, Nissan and Subaru, Mitsubishi turns out to have sold sub-standard products in large quantities, with the safety of cars, aircraft, buildings, and much else, affected by the dysfunctional quality control at the companies concerned.

Just a couple of examples of corporations-related news from very recently, really.

So when I bump into an article titled "Can Corporations Save the World?", my eyes, frankly, are rolling, and I need to make a conscious effort to stop them, focus in, and start reading. But then my eyes roll on again as I realise that this is about a kind of CSR 2.0 and I read something like this, for example:

"As Alice Korngold, author of A Better World, Inc.: How Companies Profit by Solving Global Problems…Where Governments Cannot, has said: “It’s multinational corporations, and not governments or nonprofits, that have the human and financial capital, advanced technology, international footprint, market power and financial motivation to solve the world’s most daunting problems.” /  Korngold isn’t the only commentator throwing around this theory. William D. Eggers and Paul Macmillan, who together wrote The Solution Revolution, argue multinationals, nonprofits and social entrepreneurs should “compete, coordinate and collaborate to solve megaproblems.” And economist Michael Porter has argued for what he calls “shared value,” where companies sell products and services that solve global issues. “If you can meet needs at a profit, you can scale,” he says."

What this implies is that our world can continue to exist as long as the corporate elite can take further share from its value. An additional unit of that value every time they do something for it, even as the largest of them can escape paying taxes, and even though they use public infrastructure, and benefit from the part-publicly and part-self-provided education and health services needed by their human resources to become and remain productive assets for them.

It reminds me of the first sentence of Andy Weir's book, The Martian, where the protagonist expresses his feelings over being left in the desert of Mars: "I'm pretty much saved," he says. Or something like this, in that first sentence, I vaguely recall.

"Corporate Social Responsibility" (CSR) activities can be mutually beneficial, for company as well as society, I'm not doubting that. But seeing CSR as world-saving is just as wrong as when people think it's bad because it helps corporations make a profit. Being what it is, instead, makes CSR something welcome on the margins of life, but not as a substitute for governance and public services.

Over.