Posted by Bob Burton on November 04, 2005

Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman found the Business for Social Responsibility's 2005 conference a sobering experience. The conference was sponsored by companies including ExxonMobil, Pfizer, Philip Morris, McDonald's and Monsanto. "The news -- what these giant multinationals don't want you to know -- is that they hijacked Business for Social Responsibility from its founders," they wrote in Corporate Crime Reporter. However, some in the conservative think tank scene aren't at all enamored with the idea of corporate social responsibility. The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) organised a "counter conference" to challenge what they described as the "leftist dominated" BSR meeting. Amongst the speakers at the counter-conference were James Glassman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Paul Driessen from the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

Comments

It's interesting that both the people friendly looking conference and corporate friendly counter conference are both funded and run by large corporations. I don't see much in the way of options here - I think I'll go to the next Social Forum I here about though.

Oh and I figure folks here will be interested in knowing...

COA News (http://coanews.org) just launched a "Media Alert Service"

"Updates containing COA News top stories relating to media criticism, analysis, and debate. Who controls the media? How does media affect us? How can media be used to affect society in a positive way?"

Subscribe or learn more about it here:
http://www.coanews.org/lists/index.php?p=subscribe

while reading the Corporate Social Responsibility blog about the tobacco companies i felt the familiar outrage that erupts every time i see a tobacco company listed as a sponsor for something that represents life-, being healthy, physically fit, not being a slave to nicotine. I understand that it was part of the Philip Morris settlement/judgment agreement to focus attention- and TV commercials to this "educating young people not to smoke". When my 14year old son first witnessed this absurd commercial he looked at me, puzzled by the message...."don't smoke kids" ------ yet they are allowed to keep right on selling the product? Shouldn't the settlement agreement have TV commercials warning kids of the dangers of smoking, then show a picture of their mom and dad's lungs? As an ex-ex-smoker I know how hard it is to quit. I would just like to know how a settlement agreement such as this was ever fashioned by attorneys who truly represent the injured party, the plaintiff.
I have copied below an email I sent about a year ago to Family Education Network in response to their weekly email newsltter where they cite Philip Morris being afflilated somehow with their "Family Education" website.i never received a reply other than the automated one..
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:16:50 -0500 (Z)
"Family Education Network"
Subject: i wish to only comment on philip morris being a part of your website- i fully... [Incident:050309-000862]

Thank you for contacting Family Education Network! We will respond to
you as soon as possible.

Customer (Jean ) - 03/09/2005 11:16 PM
i wish to only comment on philip morris being a part of your website- i fully understand what they are trying to do- to discourage young
people from smoking- but just how stupid do they think we are? how stupid do they think kids are? when i think about philip morris backing a ballet company???- -- what about the lungs of the dancers? i think it is an insult to my intelligence and to the intelligence of my children for philip morris to be telling my kids to not smoke and turning around and pushing the same product to me- the parent----why not come out and advertise this:: "KIDS- DON'T SMOKE- BUT IT'S FINE IF WE KILL YOUR MOM AND DAD"