Things we talk about in school occasionally get my mind
running. Today in PR Principles, we discussed Corporate Social Responsibility.
The increasing trend of large corporations to be ethical and contributing
members of the global community is one that I believe represents something of a
social shift in thinking regarding how we care for those less fortunate.
Corporations, perhaps because they have been largely
vilified by the “99%” have taken recently to supporting charities, enforcing
better labour practices, championing environmentalism, and trying to be an
overall positive influence on the world economy. Basically people have called
out large corporations for being corrupt and money-hungry, and in response,
corporations are trying to be the agent of positive change in our world. This
is of course primarily a tactic to stabilize the bottom line, and pander to a
new society of informed consumers, who demand the companies they buy from be
ethically and socially sound and productive, and who have even placed an onus
on them to be the caretakers and guardians of the poor, disabled, and
dispossessed.
This is a change in responsibility I find fascinating. For
1500 years, give or take a few, the task of caring for the less fortunate among
us was taken up by the Church (This is a fact the proponents of the Church’s
identity as a power-hungry machine of brain-washing oppression conveniently
ignore). Since its inception, the Church has seen the care of the poor and the
education of all (another fact the previously mentioned detractors of
institutionalized Church pay little attention to), as an essential function of
its vocation on earth. With the decline in the financial and social influence
of the Church and the eventual advent of socialism, this responsibility shifted
to the state, and has largely remained there to this day (welfare, Medicare
etc.). Over the past few decades however, this responsibility has more and more
been taken on by corporations and various independent charitable organizations,
and the implications of this have yet to be seen.
While the Church was motivated to care for the less
fortunate because it saw doing so as a living out of its calling and vocation,
and while one could argue the motivations are the same for the government, the
actions of corporations are primarily motivated by financial gain. Where this
will lead us remains to be seen.
What do you think? Do you see an increase in the social
advocacy and charity of corporations as a positive change? Do the corporations’
motives for such actions nullify the positive outcomes of their efforts? I
suppose I could ask – do the means justify the ends?
I’ll take a stab at a blog here since I am privy to the social advocacy policies of many large organizations. But first, I don’t understand the question, “Do the means justify the ends?” so I’ll answer the easier question, “Does the end justify the means?"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, but I’ll get to that in a minute.
The increase in social responsibility is not just a corporate phenomenon, but a societal one. Households now must separate their garbage so it can be recycled, cars must be tested to ensure their emissions aren’t too harmful to the environment and students must do volunteer work before they graduate. The increased awareness that our lives on this planet could be threatened by how we treat our environment has compelled us all to act (or at least be perceived to act) in a more responsible way.
Corporations are in business to make a profit and they shouldn’t have to apologize for that. There is demand from shareholders, from business partners and from employees to prove that they are doing their part to protect, preserve and contribute to society and the environments in which they operate. Regardless of their motives, and some may admittedly be altruistic, the fact is that businesses are at risk of losing clients, employees and the respect of society in general if they do not publicly practice social responsibility. This has become a business imperative.
So, if their contributions really do have a positive effect, how can the ends not justify the means? I guess you could look at individual social responsibility in the same way. Many students volunteer because they have to, otherwise they can't graduate. But if some food bank or seniors' residence is better off because a student helped out, how can that not be worthwhile? And if the positive effect of the good deed on the heart and soul of the volunteer compels them to do it again someday, that's an added bonus!
Excellent comment Michele, thank you! You make a very good point about social awareness and responsibility being bigger than just corporations, and I agree, it does reflect a change in the collective mindset of Western culture.
ReplyDeleteI suppose my question is a little confusing. I had the means = social advocacy and the ends = financial gain, but you could switch those two around and it would still work, so I apologize for that. My wit has failed me.
Social awareness on the part of corporations is definitely (for the most part) a sound business move, and they should not be faulted for that. What I think I'm mulling over is the question of whether we should be applauding companies for what they do, or simply acknowledging it for what it is - a business/marketing move.
Thanks for your comment!