CSR is, like so many other things, a good idea that becomes a really bad one immediately after it is politicized. Basically, the concept of CSR - Corporate Social Responsibility, is a really simple one: Costumers, both in B2B and B2C settings, do have ethical consideration in their buying decision process. Some costumers don’t want to buy a given product that is produced with the use of child labor, or with production processes that are pollution intensive. Since CSR is a part of the consumers buying decision process it then becomes a part of the demands for “ethically” correct produced goods. I am placing ethically in quotation marks here because it is first of all up to the individual consumer what they consider to be ethical, and therefore it is not possible to address this in a normative, universal manner. But that is the beauty of the market, we don’t have to address the ethical dilemmas in a universal manner, as long as it are part of the demands that the consumers have, then the market will adjust accordingly. Secondly, the problems that CSR are dealing with will overtime be less and less important, why? Because the world generally becoming more and wealthier. A wealth that is created, based on an effective use of the resources (such as time, labor, and technology), and increased international trade. And the wealthier the world gets, the more complex the buying decision process becomes, the more demands of ethical nature do the consumer have to the products.But, if the market responses to the consumers demand, and if the consumers focus on the ethical production, then why don’t we just all embrace CSR? Because, as adverted to earlier, CSR have been come politicized. In a democracy the politicians are tasked with the job of regulating society, and unfortunately also the market. I do not intent that this post should become a rant against market regulations, but if we can’t determine the universal “ethically” correct way to produce any given product, then why do we believe that we can create regulation that in the end is a moral judgment of what is right and wrong. It seems to me that what should have been a concept that could explain why wealthier consumers have started to demand more “ethically” correct produced goods, have been high jacked by politicians as a way to regulate et market in a more indirect way. By naming and shaming companies, all in the name of Social Responsibility, they are blurring the lines between their moral position as lawmakers and the individual ethical perspective any individual in the civic society has.In the act of blurring the lines between the ethical and moral, the politician is placing him in neither position and finishes in the vacuum in between, from where it no longer is possible for him to proclaim a superior position. In the end, what we end up with is the devaluation of what could have been a great concept of market self-regulation to a more ethical living.
|
