Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Yes, corporate social responsibilities are very much possible. I am proud to say that I am amongst the one who have initiated the big debate of corporate social responsibility in the carpet production and carpet market. In this part of the world in Germany about 15 years ago when we launched a big campaign to educate the consumers and pressurize the entire corporate to ensure that the carpets produced in the developing world, in India, Pakistan, and Nepal are not produced by the slave children, that consumers' consciousness and consumers' pressures helped a lot. And, the first social initiative led to the formation of the first social labeling which is known as the RUGMARK. RUGMARK is one of the most successful social labeling which guarantees that those carpets are not made by children and child slave and that has helped in the new code of conducts formulated by the government agencies and the carpet industry. Similarly, we can see a good example in sporting goods industry. Then, we see examples in cloth industry where the Clean Cloth Campaign has led to the corporate social responsibility, not only the discourse, but also some concrete measures which were taken by the industry and by the governments in many parts of the world. The latest one is the corporate social responsibility in the chocolate industry. When it was exposed that thousands of slaves are engaged in production of cocoa beans in Ivory Coast and Ghana and some other countries, that has led to a big discourse and big criticism. And, the big carpet industries, the big manufacturers got together along with the civil society and the International Labor Organization and formulated and devised a way to find the solution that the children and the slaves are not engaged in production of cocoa beans in West Africa and other parts of the world. So, the corporate social responsibility is not only the possible, but it is necessary in this globalized economy. We cannot think of a situation that without ethics, without corporate social responsibility the market will flourish because that market will end-up in more exploitation to the people, especially the children and women in the developing countries.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Kamal Boullata:

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: Hi, Adam. How are you? You are in California. You must have sun shining on you again. So, you are asking if corporate social responsibility is possible? Of course, you could put your answer in another way or I would do tha. What you are asking is really, is human social responsibility possible because basically a company or a corporation is humans. So, if you do not believe that a company can act responsible to the environments and all the communities surrounding them, then you basically do not believe that humans can act responsible. Yes, the answer is, yes. Corporate social responsibility is possible. We see a lot, a lot, a lot of questions around. This table is one question. As far as I know, a very, very big insurance company is the main sponsor of this whole project. They just simply paid for me being here, for the table being setup, for all the techniques around. Yes, corporate social responsibility is possible because basically corporations are just people.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: Social responsibility of businesses is something we should absolutely demand and there are enough businesses which exercise this responsibility in an ideal way and which are not unsuccessful with it. This means that it is not the case that if you take care of social regards, that you have no money to invest in the development of your business or the like. The correspondence of the business with the surroundings, with administration, with neighbours, with everything is ultimately essential if they want to work peacefully and be successful.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: I suppose by corporate, we mean the celebration of the dollar, pound and euro. I suppose by corporate we mean, modern days leave camps disguised as something else. I believe by corporate here, we mean Coca-Cola structures and MacDonald hamburgers. By corporate you mean dropping bags of bins in Iraq. If the entire idea of the corporate, of the multinational is one that is based upon the degradation of human life, then we have to ask ourselves, if anything positive is possible within that. I just believe in the entire destruction of the corporate concept as one that governs human life. By corporate, I believe we mean the manufacturing and the sale and the movement to and from of armament, of weapons that seek the destruction of human life; and I don’t know how you can be responsible existing within an atom bomb. I believe that the only responsibility that exists within that is a responsibility that is geared towards the killing of the human, so that is what the corporate structure is about and so. Anyone might as well fart out into the air about all sorts of responsibilities. I do not think within a world where corporate structures are only in place for the benefit of the few at the expense of the destruction of human life, of the decimation of multitudes. I don’t believe that if that is indeed a valid definition of corporate that there is any responsibility of which one might speak, if by responsibility, we mean the positive in life. Is corporate responsibility possible? Anything and everything is, you might as well say.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: I have problems with question number 17. I think the question being proposed that the woman in position of power and family manage magnify and there could be harmony and balance. I think that they are in mistake on this with the position because I think to have this human society in balance and in harmony, it is not just that one type of values in position of power but rather a kind of overall respect for different kinds of values and the likes are advantageous and I think the question in a way is frivolous. The problem is that the woman in position of power to be able to future succeed as the only solution and I think that this brightens the setting up of a question like that because I think even with the woman in position of power could [inaudible] and values and make it magnified in the society. It doesn’t solve all the questions. I think it’s not just one kind of people in power that will solve all kinds of questions, but rather how people make use of their power and how people recognize the others’ right in using power and that the power of others and recognize the attitude or the values of the others will be more important. I think that we need [to have tolerance] than what the person himself to ask. Again I think that we need to have tolerance of different kinds of power, different kinds of values, of different kinds of ethnic, races, agenda and it’s not that [inaudible + relation] one power or one gender that could solve the problem. I really have problems with this question.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: Theoretically, it is possible, say it can be a common responsibility of all humanity pursuing a world at peace or making the world more beautiful. However, a Christian's visualization of a beautiful world is probably much different from a Muslim's, thereby we can hardly attain such a practical corporate social responsibility. In short, many people must give up their own dreams and rights in order to attain a practical corporate social responsibility.

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Well I would hope so. And I think that there are pockets of it around. It's very interesting because this whole event I believe is sponsored by Allianz. I saw the message from the CEO in relation to this event and I think it's very responsible to have an event like this where people can share and participate all the hues of humanity around world. I think that perhaps that there's a consciousness creeping into corporations. I mean you can even talk about Bill Gates in relation to his philanthropic duties and I hope he sets an example, sets the sea, for others. Because corporations can be very isolated and profit driven and very alienating that they can only be about the arena of profit for other people. But I hold great hope that corporate responsibility will come to the fore, given the fact that it only needs a few people to set the example. So I think all things are possible. For me to say anything else would be to say that there is no hope. And I think ultimately it can be much more corporate responsibility, social responsibility. I think it's absolutely possible and hopefully it will become more prevalent.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: Yes, one would say corporate social responsibility is possible. Corporate, meaning doing things together. Cooperate in a corporate world where we do things together socially. It is possible because it means we put – share ideas to have an idea of groups together. This will be able to have the system of inclusivity, consultation, which will be another vehicle and, at the same time, this will need to be as much transparent as possible. So, it is possible for social corporate for social responsibility.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: Well, it is possible if they change their dominant mindset and we are not very -- you see the problem is that the corporations are responsible to no one. They are owned by no one. Their sole responsibility are to their shareholders and their shareholders want to maximize their earnings and the share, the market value of their shares. And so how can you have, it's an oxymoron really to think that under the dominant system, there could be something called real corporate responsibility. We can hope to curb it in, to curb the excesses of corporations, but we can not really talk about corporate responsibility.

by Mae-Wan Ho

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo: Sure, to a certain extent. But to be socially responsible as a corporate – corporation, you need to be willing to, for example, be okay with reduction of profit margins. You need to consider other factors that may not maximize efficiency, that may not maximize the profit margin. Absolutely, it’s possible. But I think for complete social responsibility, there probably has to be a larger restructuring of the corporate system. -- And I think people’s governments, laws, need to create that incentive for corporations to be more socially responsible.

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Mark Benecke: Corporate social responsibility is, of course, possible if the corporate structure thinks that it helps to gain their corporate goals. So, if a company thinks that it helps to invest a little bit in an altruistic way, of course altruism doesn't exist, it's just a way to get a better image or to get help from the outside, to reach your goals, then yes, they will do it. So, if a society wants their companies to have more social responsibility, meaning to be a little bit more altruistic, then the company will have to profit from that. That's a basic principle of biology. You don't help others if you don't gain a profit from that. That is a social illusion. Even people, or even companies who seem to invest a lot of money into their employees and social structures and so on, they do it a little bit for cultural values, but mostly they do it to keep efficiency high. So yes, social responsibility is possible, but it has to help the corporate goals and currently most companies' goal is to earn money, which is not a bad thing because it's a product of evolution: gaining power and wealth. As long as you don't step out of that system and just look at it from the outside, like most of us here around the table do. But not everybody can afford this or wants to step outside.

by Mark Benecke

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Martin Almada: Yes the corporate social resposibility can and has to be undertaken, uniting all the persons conscious of the current world situation and inspiring to fight for full employment, food, health, accommodation and education. Each of us can do something for it but the big change will come as a united force based on every community and group. In every part of the world a step forward has been done in this direction. The global social forum is an expression of it a space of encounter that helps us to continue this way. This gathering here in Berlin is already an expression of the existance of a corporate social responsibility.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Masami Saionji: I think it is important and possible that corporations bear the social responsibilities. Returning profits of corporations to society is natural activity of human being or the way of living for human society. Until now the profits of corporations have remained within them, spent them all on themselves and never returned to society. However, the days are changed and the consciousness level of each of us heightens in this century. Head of society, that is, head of companies returns their profits to society. Such corporations with love for all mankind can make profits and wealth naturally through returning back gratitude of society for their returning profits to society, even though they do not intend to make profits. I think the communication between society and corporation is very important because the self-interest profits and the selfish usage of them cause conflicts in society. In order to harmonize with society, corporations need to return profits to it and do a service for it.

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: Well, there are many things happening in this modern world with modern technology, everything. But, today's children, I remember when I grew up, I used to use my hand, I used to go in the open air, play and listen to music, listen to [inaudible]. I think that it’s modern communication, internet, and everything is very -- today the children are not using their hand, they are not -- they don’t know, they don’t know, they are confused. I think education system should be enrich a child. Okay, you need all the modern technology, but you should never forget your own heritage, use your hand to able to see, look the world what is happening. And, I think eduction system should give children more space. And I think children are mechanically growing up. They are not using, they are not looking in the world, they are not hearing, I think that’s so important. Education system, I think, should give a child to grow to be happy, to look, smile too -- their eyes should be sparkling, they are sitting in the computer and they don’t know. I mean, I think the education system, today’s child they are becoming more mechanical. They don’t using many things. I think that it needs to change, it needs to have use their thinking, use their brain, use their creativity more, more and explore more. And also to know other part of the world, the people, the culture, and it’s very important, because children are the future of the world. So, they need to be knowing, knowing, and that knowledge, yes it’s important, high technology and everything. Also to read books, to listen music, to have everything. I think it’s very important eduction system. So, to introduce some of the old tradition and old heritage and have a child to see the world. It’s very important, look and hear.

by Masuma Bibi Russel

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Mayank Mehta: I think it is possible. I spoke about that in response to some of the questions that I’ve mentioned earlier. So let’s again, instead of thinking of large corporations, think of the individuals that make up the populations. Is a person working in large corporation, perhaps the giant oil company which they have often being blame for many disasters in this world, natural drainage and destruction of the resources? That person in the day time, during the job, will make decisions which will make sure that the company wins, gets the contracts and develops oil fields or whatever it may be, which maybe harmful for the planet. In the long run, harmful for the well being of the children, and infect their own well being. But by the same token when the person goes home later, at the end of the day, the person of course will make sure that the children are happy, the person will do anything he or she can to make sure the children are getting good education, they have a good life, they will be healthy, they get organic food; stuff like that. So, clearly, the individuals that make up the corporation are perhaps, often times, living this fragmented life. And we have to ask the question, why? Why would the person make a decision in the evening which is in the favor of cleaner planet and make decisions in the daytime which are against it? And once again, the answer comes down to the thought that, well, somebody or the other, perhaps I’m thinking this is how the thinking might go in person’s mind, that somebody or the other is going to develop that oil field, somebody or the other is going to drain those resources, and if I don’t do it I won’t get the money, my children won’t have the resources and I would suffer. So why not go for it and take it. And what’s the big harm of my little action? And that’s where the systems fails that these people are unable to see that one little misbehavior that we commit, can be committed by a whole planet and then it becomes a big thing. And the only solution, once again, is to educate the individual without in chastising the corporations which we must do as well, of course, but we have to begin at the individual and make sure the individuals themselves are taught the long term consequences of their behavior and that it is not just one person.

by Mayank Mehta

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Michael E. Tigar: Adam, I don't know. It's certainly worth fighting for. We need to pretend that it's possible; how about that? You know, I'm a lawyer and I work with lawyers; lawyers whose job it is to enforce corporate social responsibility; lawyers who sue corporations to make them accountable for putting toxic substances into our drinking water and into the environment; lawyers who sue companies who make cigarettes and other socially irresponsible products; lawyers who sue companies who manufacture things that blow up and hurt people or don't work as they should. Now, the odd thing is, that this plaintiff's lawyer group has been stigmatized and in your own state of California, people, people who show up for jury service actually show up with the idea that there are too many lawsuits and too many frivolous lawsuits and too many people asserting their rights and that something needs to be done about it. And not only is that happening, but in state legislatures about across the country powerful corporate interests are shutting down interest to access to lawyers and access to the courts. The same thing is going on in the Congress of the United States. The corporate kleptocrats that are stealing from you and from me, from shareholders and from workers, are benefiting from congressional legislation that makes it harder to sue them and harder for lawyers to get a decent paycheck out of the fact that they spend years involving themselves in this kind of litigation. The attacks on labor unions, the attacks on the pensions of workers through these rigged bankruptcies that we're seeing particularly in the airline industry, all that, all of that, is a fruitful field or fruitful fields, within which to conduct important kinds of social struggle, to join with workers and consumers and victims of faulty products and victims of pollution and to wage the campaign against corporate greed and its consequences. Corporate social responsibility is not possible through the sort of enlightened self interest of allegedly beneficent corporate management. Corporate social responsibility is possible because people are going to organize and insist upon it. So, welcome to the fight, Adam.

by Michael E. Tigar

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Michael Laitman: Only if humanity will see that its state is fatal, that by our nature we are connected into one social formation, unification; only if we will see that we are obligated to consolidate among us into one collective with one responsibility—then the world will really be firm and good, and every person will also merit a secure life for the future. From our research it becomes clear that altruists, those who love to give and donate, comprise 10% of humanity. If we will rely on them and develop the altruistic gene, which is inherently placed into the nature of 10% of people, then we will see that nature has prepared a wonderful level for us, a wonderful trampoline to development. Our entire development, the entire education of the young generation, is nevertheless based on how we teach the generation to be altruists. We say to a child, "Don't be bad, give, yield to others." Why? Because we know that then it will be safer for the child and people will not use him. If he will yield to others, then his life will be good. This is why in essence our entire culture, our entire education, all of our religions, all science and all economics must be based on this condition. After all, even within, in the subconscious, we discover that this is the only thing that gives us security about the following day. This is why from the inside, altruism is, in a certain sense, natural for people, and we must only reveal it. There emerges only a psychological problem: to go from the egoistic realization to the altruistic one. In the end, we want to live—to live well and with confidence about the future. And so, we need to understand that confidence about the future means to contribute to society as a whole—in essence, this guarantees the following day. Besides this, in our life we are discovering that our social mechanisms are also ready for us to begin building the altruistic society. No one speaks against altruism publicly.

by Michael Laitman

Sep 9, 2006 11:15:00 AM cite

Michael P. Totten: This is a long standing problem. I worked in the US Congress for Congresswoman Claudine Schneider from Rhode Island who brought an extraordinary set of values to that Congress that I found in very few of the male members. She was among just a handful of women in an overwhelmingly male bastion. This is changing, we are seeing, at least in the United States, more legislative leaders certainly at the city and state level, and slowly at the national level. We are also seeing very slowly, too slowly, a number of corporate leaders that are women. But the question is an absolute one that there are such values that women bring to their analysis and assessment of problems. They are looking at solutions very different from men that are sorely needed in deliberative processes everywhere. This turns on a whole range of reasons why it doesn’t happen from the citizenry that doesn’t demand it, to the multiple roles that women play, of course rearing children, and it requires a reshaping not only our communities and cities to make it more accessible for women, and families and husbands to play more engaged roles rather than having the separation of work from home, or schools from home, or neighborhood to home. We need to be able to have a more seamless process and spatial lay out of our cities so that women can be more participative, and by that process be engaged in more of the social decision-making. I think with the emergence of the collapse in the cost of computers and the connectivity, there is really no reason that there can’t be more participation occurring in local communities that have national prominence. The idea of virtual conversations going on, because you have wall sized videos that look as if you ran into another person’s room, or two people--[Audio Ends].

by Michael P. Totten