Corporate Social Responsibility and the Crisis of Globalization

by Sheldon Rampton

Three trends related to globalization are driving the rise of "corporate social responsibility": the rising protest movement against economic globalization, the "war on terrorism" that began on September 11, and recent corporate scandals.

The concept of "globalization" has multiple meanings. Corporations and their PR firms view globalization primarily in terms of the economic opportunities associated with opening local markets to international trade and investment. However, the "anti-globalization" movements which have arisen in response to corporate globalization are themselves global in scope. Activists from throughout the world shared information via the Internet during the "Battle of Seattle" in 1999, in which a broad range of environmental, labor and social activists challenged the World Trade Organization.

The issues addressed by the topic of corporate social responsibility are also global. In March 2002, SustainAbility, a British corporation which encourages activists to dialogue with companies embroiled in environmental and human rights controversies, issued a report titled "Good News and Bad: The Media, Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development." The report, produced in cooperation with the Ketchum PR firm and the United Nations Environment Program, covered issues including "biodiversity, child labor, climate change, corporate social responsibility, endocrine disruptors, genetically modified foods, globalization, green politics, the growth of megacities, ozone depletion, recycling, renewable resources, socially responsible investing, sustainable forestry, and urban air quality."

From the point of view of "anti-globalization" protestors, these issues demonstrate why corporations cannot be trusted to oversee the emerging new global order. From the point of view of corporate leaders, however, corporate social responsibility is important precisely as a vehicle for reassuring the public that corporate globalization is a good thing. According to Ketchum CEO Ray Kotcher, in fact, the lesson to take away from "Good News and Bad" is that the media needs to be "more socially responsible" by taking "a more active role in communicating the benefits of globalization."

The Bottom Line

Ketchum chairman David Drobis offered similar views at a November 2001 summit organized by the International Communications Consultancy Organization (ICCO). Drobis declared that the "new global imperative for public relations" was "confidence building to save globalization" by targeting three groups: "the private sector, non-governmental organizations and international institutions."

One of the main sources of globalization, he said, is the view among activists that "international capitalism is nothing more than a byword for oppression, exploitation and injustice by rapacious multinationals. In their view, companies will stop at nothing to maximize profits even if it means degrading the environment, abusing workers, exploiting third-world markets and committing a host of other sins." Drobis called these "harsh and unfair claims" but added, "The problem is that companies have done little to disprove these allegations."

"Proving the business case is the surest way to erase perceptions that 'corporate social responsibility' is an empty PR bolt-on."
--Ketchum Chairman David Drobis

The best way to disprove these allegations, Drobis said, was to demonstrate that there is a positive correlation between social responsibility and profitability--that, in other words, companies have no reason to behave badly, because the profit motive itself is driving them to behave well. "Proving the business case is the surest way to erase perceptions that 'corporate social responsibility' is an empty PR bolt-on," he said.

A second way to build support for globalization, Drobis said, was to "build confidence with the second important group in this communications strategy: non-governmental organizations, many of whom are openly hostile toward the private sector." In fact, he said, "The NGO community has also become an important seal of approval for companies and brands. . . . Among the NGOs that are engaged in such partnerships: Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Forest Stewardship Council."

But Drobis drew a distinction between NGOs "which are downright militant" and "the moderate, clear-thinking NGOs, many of which have valid complaints about pressing social and economic issues related to globalization. These groups differ in many important respects from their more extreme, slogan-based counterparts. Most importantly, they are peace-abiding and believe in solutions, not slogans." As an example of a "moderate, clear-thinking NGO," he pointed to the World Wildlife Fund, which "is pursuing a vigorous and successful communications strategy" to achieve its goals. "These activities are our bread and butter," Drobis said, adding that ICCO members should be "working with NGOs or encouraging these groups to communicate more effectively."