By John Wires, Glendon College/York University
John Wires started a work term with the Rights and Democracy Network this summer to aid in the development of some of the networks projects for the upcoming year. As a regional facilitator for Ontario John’s job largely dealt with organizing this years upcoming regional “Mingler” on corporate social responsibility (CSR). Nearing the end of the summer John was presented the opportunity to further explore some of the major issues surrounding CSR with a trip to El Salvador where he visited a Starbucks coffee processing plantation, a textile manufacturing plant, and met with the local Canadian Embassy’s Trade Commissioner Romeo Calderon.
Initially, the subject of corporate social responsibility (CSR) didn’t have a greater meaning attached to it for me. It was just a side note to capitalism. It was something that went against the notion that corporations are only responsible to their shareholders. It was a concept that couldn’t catch on because it had no logical workings in the capitalist system. Transnational corporations would not voluntarily increase production costs (though measures such as paying higher wages to their developing country factory workers) simply to please various stakeholders and to be labeled “responsible”.
Yet, nearly one year has past since then, and the concept of CSR has taken over my thoughts. It started with a simple little belief that perhaps my past understanding was flawed. CSR is not about corporations taking on initiatives just to be good, with the prospect of lower profits. Instead, corporations enter into the realm of CSR initiatives to make more money from doing “good”. In this sense, CSR operates within the classical understanding of capitalism and not in opposition to it.
While perhaps it is somewhat discouraging to think that corporations are not actually initiating these CSR projects out of the goodness of their heart, but to simply increase profit, I firmly believe that the motive for these initiatives is not what is important, or relevant. What is relevant is the outcome of such CSR operations. From Starbucks supporting co-operatives in order to market themselves as “fair trade” retailers, to Scotia Bank operating in the rural areas of Central America. The real matter then becomes determining if such projects really effect positive change for human rights.
So, concluding my summer internship with the Right and Democracy Network, my desire to further explore the matter grew. I now sit overlooking the Gulf of Mexico returning from a trip to El Salvador, a small county tucked away on the pacific coast in Central America. El Salvador is a country that has undergone major economic changes (best described as Americanization) since the end of their civil war in the 1980’s. But for me, a massive influx of American corporations meant El Salvador would be the perfect place to witness just how some of corporate America’s CSR policies actually effect change.
Without too much detail, my visits to various coffee plantations in rural El Salvador revealed some extremely harsh working conditions. Reports released by Human Rights Watch for El Salvador regarding child labor across their vast acres of sugar plantations seemed to echo onto the coffee plantations as well.
Yet, based on conversations I had with local El Salvadorians, the Starbucks initiative to pay “fair” prices to one certain co-operative plantation seemed to be extremely well received, and appeared to be making real changes for their plantation workers. In fact, as a result of Starbucks paying higher prices for their “fair trade coffee” the co-operative plantation had managed to set up a day care centre (keeping children out of harsh labor positions) and other services for all the workers. More importantly, the workers were receiving sustainable wages to help them flee from lives of poverty.
While agreeably in many cases the same companies that market themselves within the realm of CSR are operating “non-socially responsible” on other matters (including Starbucks), they have nevertheless played a vital role in increasing the market demand and standard for certain “ethical products”. In the coffee industry for example, other major coffee houses are having to produce and sell fair trade coffee to compete in the new “fair trade” coffee market.
So in short, even if Starbucks is able to increase profits by marketing to the “ethical consumer”, if they are effecting real and positive changes on human rights around the world, then after my previous skepticism, I believe CSR has great potential to be not only a great tool for companies to gain a competitive advantage with in their industry, but also to make great improvements for the rights of human beings around the world.
While corporations have long played into the tactics of marketing environmentally friendly products, many new companies are beginning to play in to the new niche market of CSR and human rights. But, it is up to us as students with concerns for the worlds human rights issues, to aid in expanding the demand for these “ethical products”. From protesting to have fair trade coffee sold on our campuses to buying ethical (sweat shop free) clothing. We as consumers are the ones who create the final demand to make it worth the while for companies to produce ethically.
If you’re interested in learning more about CSR and which companies are trying to “do good by doing well” we hope to see you at the Ontario Regional Mingler.
