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

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Hello, Adam. I feel it has to be. It has to be possible otherwise we are facing catastrophe. If the corporations don’t feel social responsibility, it will mean the demise of our world because they’re so powerful. They’re infiltrating all areas of our life. They exploit our nature. They pollute our cities. They take over our cities. They decide the agendas of many countries. They are the important ingredients in many conflicts in the world, and I feel they have to develop a social responsibility and I don’t see a conflict in corporations and ethics in the development of corporations and development of what they do, and basically their aim of making money and being ethical. I think the reason, feel myself Al Gore, about the pollution of the world and how it’s coming on shows clearly that it doesn’t really have to be in conflict between moneymaking mentality and preserving our nature, for example, and having another responsibility. But the corporations themselves will not take that over. We have to work to make them available. We cannot destroy them. We cannot dismantle them, but we need to really see to it that we work towards making them conscious, and I think it’s possible. We’ve seen them happening, and I think the public pressure is growing and it’s showing results. Maybe not enough but we shouldn’t give up that fight because I think that’s one of the most, when it comes to future of the world, the economic future of the world and in other senses, it’s one of the important battles.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Eliane Potiguara: It is the responsibility of everybody, as I put it before every kind of unilateral responsibility will not work out. We all have to participate in the social processes here on this planet. Referring to our natural resources we all have to make clear what is important for us. The governments need to understand that they need to govern with the people. When governments start with their political campaigns and to distribute the positions to the gouvernor, the president, the deputies, the senators, they understand that they need the people. But in real then when they start with their policy the people, the voice of the people is no longer interesting matter for them anymore. How is it possible to create, to generate and to govern if it takes responsibility even in a bad way? So, the corporate responsibility is the responsibility of all of us, of the people as well as of the government.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Eliot Weinberger: What’s currently said about western civilization, it would be a good idea. I think that corporate social responsibility is possible, but it only occurs when you have pressure that’s coming both from above, meaning the government, and from below, meaning the individual consumers. And I think that when you have a situation where, as in the United States and in many of the western countries now and in many third world countries, where the government is not demanding some sort of social responsibilities, is not demanding some kind of accountability, and then that pressure has to come from below. The consumer after all has in many cases, not all cases, has a possibility of simply buying something else. One of the problems though, I think, in theUnited States in particular is that extremely local minorities particularly fundamentalists, and so forth, have been making, through well-organized campaigns, are making demands of the corporations changing their policies, for example, towards their employees such as giving gay partners benefits and things like that. So there’s a kind of larger majority that needs to be heard in many of these cases.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: Thank you, Adam in my own state, California, for your question on whether corporate social responsibility is possible. I was recently in Brazil where corporations are taking question of social responsibility very very seriously and there are lot of wonderful things happening. I’ve toured a hospital, which is actually a corporation that asks its own community all the time what can we do for you and in which it’s a children’s hospital and some of the leading research in the world goes on there. They are the ones who pioneered liver transplants for instance, from mothers to children. And, I saw there in every room no matter what the child’s illness was, there was a lounge chair that converted into a bed for the mother to be there. They were beautiful murals on the walls. The doctors were running around with clown noses on and entertaining the children. There was a sense of a song and spirit and happiness trying to make the children as happy as possible. That’s one little example of corporate social responsibility in Brazil. Many many companies are doing, so many things in that line. And, it’s also developing in other parts of the world. There is some contradiction in the way corporations are set up now in their -- it’s difficult for them to really take social accountability seriously, because of their pressured 90-day accountability for profits to their shareholders. Now, if we could shift corporate responsibility away from shareholders to stakeholders, which is everyone who has an interest, ultimately everyone in the world, then thing would start to shift or would continue to shift much more rapidly towards social responsibility and also ecological responsibility in corporations. Our whole economic system needs to be shifted from win-lose system to a win-win system. And, as an evolution biologist I have hope that that can happen, because immature species do hostile competitive economics and mature species have learned that cooperation is much more economically efficient than hostile competition. So, my hope are for a transition in this world to a true global family, toward win-win economics in which all businesses will be socially and ecologically accountable as well as making a good living.

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Ervin Laszlo: It certainly is possible. More than that, it is already beginning to be practiced. Two food companies adopted so far, and many of them adopted for public relations for specific purposes and some however go deeper. It is a trend and we hope that this trend will develop. It certainly is possible, and certainly is of great importance.

by Ervin Laszlo

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Esther Mwaura-Muiru: I think corporate social responsibility is not just possible, but it should be a demand. It should be a must. First of all, corporation private sector institutions are set by individuals, individuals who are members of their societies. It defeats me when I imagine that these people who own this corporate sector who leads the corporate sector, who leads the private sector actually truly any longer believes they are members of their own society. For me, it is so important that for their owners, the heads of corporate sector start realizing that truly they are members of their own society. And, I think the most unfortunate thing when people live in poverty, they see poverty and they get out of poverty. They tend to forget where they have come from. I have known and heard and read of many, many, many managers and owners of big company. They actually when they grew up they were very poor. But today, they are the exploiters. So, I feel truly speaking that it must be not -- it’s not a choice of responsibility, it has to be a must. People must think and know that they are part of our community and that the community have different levels of people, have different levels of people with different capacities and that we must be about to share what we have. But, the ultimate reason why this corporate responsibility must be there is the corporations are the ones that are extracting the biggest amounts of natural resources. And natural resources belong to people and therefore it is there automatically means that the corporate sector must share the resources, must share the gains with the community, it’s not a choice. And, I think we are giving too much opportunity for corporate sector to see such a choice. It isn’t a choice and shouldn’t be a choice of bringing back and sharing part of the gains and profits with the community. It is not welfare to support communities with part of the profits that corporate sector gains. It’s actually a responsibility. A responsibility must not be given a choice.

by Esther Mwaura-Muiru

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Fernando Solanas: Corporate social responsability and objectives like this are absolutely possible and they are problems of political decision. The problem is that our societies are restricted, incarcerated in institutional system that follow the preservation of the dominant economical powers. There is no doubt that the means of mass communication could help. Today there is a global power of the media that has its centres in the United States and in Europe where the big global broadcast stations are. This is what builds the collective conscience. This is what builds information. The means of communication are the biggest instrument of political, informational and cultural debate today. Thus we can get to a society of corporate social responsability and it seems that we all have to work for it. To modify the institutions, to democratise democracy and the mass media of the means of communication so that they serve for the conformation of a society where solidarity, resolution of big subjects, of big injustices, of big necessities and not the rent and the richness of individuals are the absolute priority.

by Fernando Solanas

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Fred Matser: That, absolutely, is the situation. The point is, of course we live in an existing structure and the bottom line for me would be, are the existing systems willing to give up certain powers that they have monopolized for themselves and are they honestly willing to share that with the people in the so-called lower level. Instead of excluding people, including people, allowing everybody on the different levels in society and in the companies to give them voice, to have them speak out their opinions, their feelings, and to take them seriously, and at least do that in full respect, to be aware when we are the leaders that we, in a way, would need to give up, to take the power over other people, if we are in those positions, and have the patience to sit together and around certain teams form groups, on the different levels to address issues that relate to how we can create a more functional society. So, indeed to wrap it up, yes, it is possible. But, indeed, we have to dramatically change our systems. And if the willingness is not there, on the level where now the power is concentrated, it is very difficult. So, I would say to those people in powerful positions introspect, sit together with those that are not in those positions, and see how we can help to create more functional systems of corporate social responsibility.

by Fred Matser

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Galsan Tschinag: Yes, it's possible. We know some very good examples. The Swabian Robert Bosch has proofed that wealth and humanity, profit and responsibility not necessarily have to be contradictions. And I can also refer to Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy who wasn't only a well-known writer but also an incredibly rich big landowner. He gave away everything he had for the education and freedom of his farmers.

by Galsan Tschinag

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Geert Lovink: I've got a friend in Amsterdam, Evelyn [] and she's doing a lot of research into this field of corporate social responsibility. It is a very special jargon. It's a discourse that came up in the '80s and '90s and is now spreading across the globe and most corporations use it, talk about it. For me it's pure ideology. So it is manufactured by PR firms and it is used as a tool, as a weapon, in the media battles; think about Nike, think about all the complaints about computer waste and the computer firms and the way they are implicated in the waste production of toxic waste and the dumping of toxic waste in poor countries. So, for me, we have to really focus on this issue as a media issue. We cannot look beyond that and say, well, if companies improve a little bit, they can get a logo on their product saying that their social responsibility is all right. I would, myself, not go for such standards, code of conduct that go with this rhetoric. Instead, I would attack the rhetoric itself and show who are behind the manufacturing of these slogans and these ideas; because there is in fact very little known about the whole PR branding of such issues. There's even less known about how large corporations are in fact at war with activists

by Geert Lovink

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Giora Feidman: Well, responsibility, social responsibility, corporation and social corporation, is not a question if it is possible or is not possible. Without social corporation in our system, we are dead people that walk. It is not the question, it is not the question of possible or not possible. We will see in our system of life that we create ourselves. When it is corporation, we find solutions. When it is not corporation, we found war. We fight. This we can see it. This is not a statement of it can happen or will happen. No, now, in this moment that we are speaking, all of us together, a result of not corporate responsibility is in the surface. We don’t have another choice to corporate. Doesn’t mean that you must give up nationality, religion, political position, nothing to do with; continue to be your way. But always remember that we are responsible for ourself, and each one of us is responsible for another, another person. This is -- without this the society will not function. This we can call mathematic.

by Giora Feidman

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Gladman Chibememe: Whether it’s possible or not, that’s a real debate. But from -- in my own perspective, I think it is possible. It is a thing that needs to be tried. The corporate world, I’ve been responsible for a lot of things related especially to the destruction of the environment. They are the ones who dump affluent in the water bodies from which we need to have water, fresh water. They are the people who pollute the environment. And corporate responsibility in this case as I see it is that, they need to be responsible. They need to pay for what they are doing. They need to pay for polluting the environment. They need to pay for overexploiting resources at the expenses of other people. So, it is important that they do business in an ethical and moral way. As it stands rightly, a business is being done in an amoral way, immoral and amoral way. There is no ethics in business, but they need to be responsible. Once they become responsible, the world they step to be accountable to their behavior. Then we talk about corporate responsibility. They should pay for the cleaning of their mess. They should pay for the pollution they do. They should pay for the resources which they exploit from the environment. In that case, it becomes the social responsibility. It comes their responsibility to really make sure that this well, these resources are essential resources that help or that assist almost everyone under the sun. In fact, because what it is the corporate world seems to be selfish and is actually commercializing everything and at the expense for majority.

by Gladman Chibememe

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi: Yes, it is possible. But, are they sincere about it? Do they want to be socially responsible? There is an increasing interest among the corporates to relate with the society that it should not be just a public gimmick. How can a corporate be socially responsible if it is not able to provide products that do not exploit the natural resources in an unsustainable manner? It must not be just a packaging. It must be part of the production processes. It must be part of the distribution practices. You can’t do a charity of social process of development. And it must be with an intent of really being responsible, not superficial. I wish the corporates see that way, that they have more to gain by being responsible socially at all levels of production and distribution in a way that less destruction of natural resources happens, rather no destruction of natural resources is encouraged.

by Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Hans-Peter Dürr: Businesses are able to take over social responsibility, but they don't do it. I don't believe that their ideology really allows for this. Maybe as a kind of luxury. This is due to the fact that businesses are under pressure in competition. Competition is a game with a negative result, a game with winners and losers, but always with a higher number of losers. Taking over responsibility means playing a different game with a positive result. The personal advantage is going to be the advantage of others and via a detour this returns to you and turn out to be your own advantage. A surrounding, which offers advantages is important for my own development.

by Hans-Peter Dürr

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Harry Wu: It is complicated and inconsistent. How is our possibility? There is corporate social responsibility rather than not. But how the corporate responsibility is divided is worth discussing. It is not simple to make a conclude. What is corporate social responsibility? How great is it now? How much should we assume? How different are the various societies in the world？These are worth troubling out.

by Harry Wu