Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Adam, it’s not just a source of responsibility. It is totally a source of responsibility. The corporate responsibility people don’t understand and thus the corporations are making money, money, money, money. And do they distribute that money? I don’t think so. Look at the banks, Adam. They charge you, in North America, they charge for every transaction you do. They charge you money. And they have profit. I live in Canada and those five big banks in Canada, they have billions of dollars in profits they make based on the charges they do for every transaction 40 million people do. And look at United States. Look at Germany. Look at all the places in the world, each bank makes money. Not just the banks, then comes the corporations. It was asked earlier today about brand names. They make money upon money. Do they distribute their wealth to those who bought their products? No they don’t. It is really funny. The other day, in a big corporation that you were talking about how important it is for having social responsibility. One of the corporations in Canada was proudly announcing, “We have a foundation.” Did you know that they have more than many billions of dollars of profit? Their foundation was 10 million dollars. Is that social responsibility? They claim it to be. But 10 million dollars versus billions of dollars in profit. At least they began. Will they succeed in really meeting that social responsibility? I pray to the Great One. But again, Adam, we need your help for that.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Anthony Arnove: This is actually a great question because there is - I think a lot of people are right now talking about corporate responsibility, talking about socially conscious corporations. And really, I think that this is a very problematic notion because corporations exist for a reason under capitalism, which is to make profit. And at the end of the day, that is what corporations will do. And that goal, that imperative of making profit is completely at odds with social responsibility, it’s completely at odds with questions of concern having to do with the environment, treatment of workers, social concerns that are raised by those who talk about corporate responsibility, social responsibility of corporations. Ultimately, corporations, if they believe that they might be socially responsible, will find themselves at an economic disadvantage from corporations that are operating without any such concerns. And in that kind of condition of competition that exists under capitalism, those corporations will be able to drive out a competition, which has concerns that will raise the cost of production, that will raise the cost of doing business for those corporations. So, whatever the intentions of individuals in those corporations, the Directors, the CEOs, or so on, they will find that their investors, their Board Advisors or their competition will pressure them economically, and thus equilibrium on the system will then return to an equilibrium, which is based on exploitation or based on denial of any social concerns.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Anuradha Koirala: If you have connection towards the social issues, yes. If you have connection towards the social issues, yes. There is responsibility of corporate -- there is corporate responsibility that is responsible for causes. If you have social [conscience] – social issue[conscience], then there is possibility of corporate responsibility.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Anuradha Mittal: I think as long as corporate social responsibility is voluntary, are dependent on the corporations to adopt the standards, it is not possible. Unfortunately, it has turned into a public relations exercise where we see corporations like Monsanto talk about through biotechnology feeding the world, it is nothing else but PR campaigns; it is nothing else but poor washing. Or they talk about their technology will result in less use of pesticides; that’s green washing. And we saw from the Rio Summit that corporations did emerge as these partners, these public-private partnerships that emerged from the Rio Summit, [inaudible] Summit and suddenly these corporations instead of polluters became partners. Now as long as we have corporate social responsibility as a pure tool where they are underneath obligation to fulfill the codes that they sign up to, we will see a world where corporations are using it for their fancy advertising. Chevron and Shell can have their participants to talk about environmental protection with these fancy slogans, “Do people care?” But the truth is we need to ask, “Do people kill?” And, yes, these corporations are still killing. So, as long as it is voluntary, as long as corporations are not regulated, as long as they are not tied, their hands are not tied behind their back in terms of respecting human rights and respecting workers rights and respecting our environmental codes, we will see a world where basically corporate social responsibility will be nothing else but basically a pure exercise whereby the corporations can get away with basically using it to promote their interests but without being accountable to anyone. Also, along with these codes, you need not just independent monitoring by civil society, but we also need governments implementing these codes of conduct, that these governments instead of being in the pockets of corporations are actually ensuring that these corporations are living up to the ideals that they have signed up to. And if we do not do that, whether it is Global Compact between the UN and companies such as Shell, we will not really see reality change on the ground. And last thing I would say is for corporate social responsibility, it is really important that environmental regulations go hand in hand with principles of equity. You cannot separate environmental ecology and equity. And we have to have codes of conduct for corporations that basically apply on all these areas of ecological [audio ends]

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Ashok Gangadean: Not only is it possible, it must happen. And I think it is happening into this global world as culture shifts from an older form of ego-based separate culture where the bottom line for corporate life and evil capitalism has been the bottom line of the maximum profit and money for the corporate system. But now it’s being seen as we shift to a more whole systems approach of seeing our interconnectivity with each other, and with different economies and with different peoples and cultures and with nature. We’re shifting to a more integral form of corporate life and this new evolution and revolution in corporate responsibility. There are clearly new corporate leaders that have begun to develop a sense of corporate business ethics in a global scale and realizing that we must really be sensitive. It makes to all of the different stake holders in our economic life, not just the bottom line of the corporation making profits, but to tend to the welfare of workers, to be sensitive to the relationships with all of our different dimensions that lead to that corporate productivity, the workers and whether they are being exploited. It is now clear that a triple bottom line that is more rich and enriching is better business. So that it pays now. It’s being seen just in terms of entrepreneurial survival. It pays to be good. Goodness pays. And being right is much better business and more profitable even than the other ways, the older ways that only looks at the egocentric, more myopic bottom line of maximizing profits and money.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: Definitely corporate social responsibility is possible, but more than possible it is increasingly becoming a necessity as people are becoming more socially conscious and socially minded. They want to be able to have corporations exercise social responsibility as well. And will ultimately support those corporations and the products that they consume and buy, or not, depending upon whether or not the corporation ultimately will be able to present a positive image, be able to promote the common good of people around the world. So I think that corporations are recognizing this need to behave in socially responsible ways and to let the consumer know that they also have an aspect of the corporate funds which are used to promote poverty alleviation, promote education, promote activities that benefit youth, a variety of ways that corporations are increasingly demonstrating their connectivity to the communities in which their businesses are located and that they cannot divest themselves of having a responsibility to their communities and to their consumers to behave in ethical, responsible ways. Are there corporations who do not yet understand or embrace corporate responsibility? Yes. But I do believe that more and more corporations are beginning to see that the image that they create in the world has a lot to do with how they're able to demonstrate to the public their ability to be able to serve the needs of the members of the community as well.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: Again it depends in some ways, but I would say yes. It is possible, it is definitely possible. There are corporations who are being socially responsible. The way that corporate or corporation to be socially responsible is not looking at the bottom line. It’s not looking at, that we have this one bottom line of profit and that’s all we are looking at. We must look at a triple bottom line. We must look at the, not only the profit, the monetary gain, we must also look at the economic, or let’s say economic. We must look at the ecological bottom line and also the social bottom line. If we take all three of these things into considerations in the way that we design and plan, the way that the corporation functions, and we hold these as a core ethics. Taking care of the earth, taking care of the people that will allow for an abundance and actually a corporation is limiting itself tremendously by not taking in their social responsibility. If you have a corporation that values its people, its culture, its community, they only enrich them. They are happy people, they have coops and they have community lead organizations that working in a cooperative model. They have LLC, Limited Liability Corporations that hold these ethics possible. So, yes, if we looked at the triple bottom line, holding true to our ethical responsibility.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Benson Venegas: Jacintha, this is a very interesting question, and from my heart I would like to say that this is not necessarily what's happening. What you can notice is that this disbalance the way education is approached in our societies. Where people have more access to better education and other people have less access to education. So for education system to really have children bloom you need four things. The first thing is that we need to prepare our children to work, or to live, in a post-modern society. We need to help them to bring, or create a synergy, between old and new values. The old values of the old world and the values of the new world. Secondly, we need to equip kids and children to really live and develope in a economically context. And this is very important, because economy is going globally, so we need to prepare our children to really - to work in this new dimension of things. There's a third and very important aspect. And it has to do - and I think this is one of the places were we have made a mistake sometimes in schools -that we really need to bring in the classroom all the diversity of learning, the richness of the diversity of learning aspects that is present in the classroom, where kids from different cultures, from different perspective, from different backgrounds, can really enrich, in a more participatory way, the knowledge that they're getting from the system. And fourth, and what is very - least and not important - is that we need to really narrow the gap of the disbalance of education, where some places people have access to better education, and others really have less possibilities for education. We need to narrow that gap to be able to help children to bloom in a broader way. And that education can be very keystone in a process of transforming people lives.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Beverly Schwartz:

by Beverly Schwartz

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Bora Cosic: Off course it is social responsibility. I do not know any kind of sociality which enables the responsibility of firms them self there, there are always some kind of ideological or economical catch. In socialism it was always spoken of some general standards in independence of community, in capitalism there are some other standards. However I do not know which method can be established to make the responsibility of corporate true.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Brian J. Weller:

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Catherine David: It's undoubtedly possible, but not necessarily desirable insofar as corporate social responsibility is a little bit a refusal or a substitution of the political. I think that what's really missing today is a real, consistent, constituted, polemic, dissentient political space, and that the social society is often the alibi, the first alibi they find not to let any space for the political; I didn't say "the politics", I said "the political". And that, even if it's more than desirable that the social society is more responsible, active, conscient, I think that civil responsibility, civil society can't be a substitute for the political, and that this is a drift which, at the moment, seems quite serious to me in numerous situations.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

China Keitetsi: I think it is possible. I think if every human being, everyone who is over 20 years old, makes in his everyday life, puts an hour or so aside and try to do something to change the world, I think it is possible because we are so many people, but why do we not notice it? And how can things which doesn't speak be difficult to achieve? I think we are the master of everything that doesn't speak. And it depends of course on how much love and passion and care you put into such caring. For me, as a lone person, everything I've tried to do, everything I've tried to organize, not only for me, for my children, for my friends, for my sister's children, I have done. It's about choice. You can choose not only to live for you but also to live for many others. And this will be possible.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: It shows up in the last 10 to 15 years, that the attempts, so peripheral and desperately they seem, of the united nations and also world-prominent companies strongly creates more and more social responsibility. There is something like “Social Entrepreneurship”, it gives movements in the world, in America, in Europe, in addition, in India, which shows responsibility, but that are only drops on a hot stone. The pure market capitalization and continued winning vines of the world companies, also in the energy sector, is threatening. That involves not only the western states, america and europe but all states. It involves China substantially, if one considers that China makes billion-investments in Africa, in Angola, in Mozambique, in the Sudan. Infrastructure and road construction, in response, oil deliveries of the world. One may not forget, that America is engaged in Equatorial Guinea, a pure dictatorship, just because of interests in oil, interests in securing energy, China does the same, for many years with large success. China has replaced the World Bank in Africa as a credit giver. The states of Africa, which are often dictatorial, prefers to get credits given by China without objection, without control from western states, like the World Bank according to democratic principles in its states. That means, China pursues here a supportless energy policy in hunger after resources, which is not to be brought in agreement with democratic rules. In that meaning it appears doubtfuly that the world economy can take social responsibility at all, on the contrary, it appears that the rivalry / competition, the absolute competition in the world market often excludes social responsibility. All efforts of the United Nations to limit children work or women discrimination in the world enterprises, I think of a Social Compact between the United Nations, like DaimlerChrysler or other world companies. It continues to be a drop on a hot stone, the world economy releases itself more and more the social responsibility.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Cornel West: There is no doubt that corporate social responsibility is possible. It’s not only possible but it’s necessary. It’s highly desirable. We have seen, in fact, corporations make significant concession to workers over the last 150 years or so in which in fact child labor laws and which in fact healthcare and other benefits do in fact take place. It has everything to do with the power and clout, the organized pressure of working people, of trade unions in work places trying to ensure that the corporate quest for profits do not take place in such a way that that quest ignores the rights of working people so that we have, in fact, seen corporate social responsibility at work. Unfortunately in the last 30 years, workers rights have been attenuated, working workers power have been cut; and corporate social responsibility cannot be talked about without, in fact, significant worker organizations having power and pressure to ensure that there is some kind of fairness, some kind of justice in the kind of contracts made between working peoples and corporate elites. So, it’s not only possible. We have seen it in action over and over again; we’ve also seen cut backs; we’ve also seen take backs and, therefore, it’s always a dynamic situation and has so much to do with whether in fact workers organizations can be forward sustained and are strong enough to promote corporate social responsibility along with fellow citizens in small businesses and in civil society as a whole.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: In our case to be honest social responsibility is still on the clouds. It's still an ambition because most of the businesses who exist or who are present in our community, in our country are concerns more of their profit than social development. And in my experience, in our place so the concept of social -- corporate social responsibility is still an ambitious and is still in the clouds. These are yet to be realized by the local and indigenous peoples, especially in the Philippines and Kalinga as a whole. So, there is really a need to raise the consciousness for the business people, corporate people to be more socially responsible in the first place. If society is not a developed one, they will not make profit only or maybe this is one way of a conscience fee for businesses who are doing, especially doing extracting resources, extracting businesses. They should really have the sense of social responsibility. So, that is I think the global call for corporate businesses to help in the social development.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas