Interesting Discussion Interesting article form the UNIDO Magazine - CSR: a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

The article is available @ CSR: a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

A thought provoking article, well done. The dilemma described is a very hard nut to crack, indeed. The rewarding mechanisms we currently have in place promote short term profit, materialism, over consumption, unlimited growth, etc. The whole concept of sustainable development requires us to prioritize long term objectives and goals, but our financial and monetary interests work against that. As long as we reward corporations, businesses and their “leaders” primarily for their last quarter balance sheet, it will be impossible to shift the mindset of the business titans, and corporate responsibility will always be mitigation of damage to the future generations, but damage, nevertheless.

Well... I could write pages on this, but it's too complex and extensive. And the stuff in the article, while correct (in my opinion), is the same stuff that has been written about for quite a few years. I will say this:

None of this is new as I remember in college 50 years ago much of what we see today was clearly inevitable and I (we at Westminster) were taught the predictable future in several classes, especially in (of all things mostly biology classes). I can't say I envisioned where the world is at today to happen in my lifetime, but at that age it's hard to even understand how you're living in a very short "event" in the timeline of your life. It is, at that age, extremely hard to truly envision yourself at age 70, or 80, or 90... As to businesses, by the 70's they were changing, though somewhat subtly at first just as the NRA in the 1970's started its metamorphic change from gun safety to a business and a political tool.

Businesses are not, in my opinion, the cause; at least not alone. People make choices. We have seen some effects more recently where boycotts,(as an example) caused changes. Recently in Puerto Rico recently people brought about significant political change. People control how much they consume. People control how many children they have, for all intents and purposes. I shiver when I hear people bragging about their 10 to 15 (or more) grand children, as population density is a significant factor. What kind of world will their grand children inherit, especially considering the reality of climate change?

I admit to being a pessimist. I think ecological disaster is much closer than people think. I hear people laughing about laws in some places against plastic straws. Seems like small change, but like pennies they all add up.

Marc said:

I admit to being a pessimist.

Click to expand...

The FAO estimates that as many as 25,000 people lose their lives every day as a result of hunger. That adds up to roughly 9.1 million people who die of starvation each year.

But when an airplane crashes and 250 people lose their lives, the media makes sure the tragedy lingers on the news for days or weeks.

So, close to 25,000 perish every day, around the world, for lack of food. Still, how much food is wasted in the "developed world" on a daily basis?
How many billions of dollars obese and overweight people spend on diets and exercise to lose fat they acquire for excessive eating? It is not easy being optimistic with the insane wealth concentration and social and environmental injustices so rampant.

Long-term, capitalism is incompatible with anything that is not capitalism.

That includes sustainability / environment protection, democracy, you name it. Everything you hold dear, regardless of who you are and what you actually hold dear.

When capitalism clashes with something else, it crushes it, either quickly or slowly but surely. Always has, long-term. Always will, too.

Orwell wrote in 1984 (in 1949): "Power for the sake of power". It's not even about wealth - when you're a multi-billionaire, what more wealth can you possibly need (or want)?

I'm yet to hear about a viable plan to disarm capitalism or convert it into something benign. Some are suggesting ideas, but it's all based on the good will of those who hold that destructive power (not the frontperson), and apparently crave more of it, as Orwel has brilliantly understood so long ago. What a laugh.

Not optimistic at all.

Ronen E said:

Long-term, capitalism is incompatible with anything that is not capitalism.

That includes sustainability / environment protection, democracy, you name it. Everything you hold dear, regardless of who you are and what you actually hold dear.

When capitalism clashes with something else, it crushes it, either quickly or slowly but surely. Always has, long-term. Always will, too.

Orwell wrote in 1984 (in 1949): "Power for the sake of power". It's not even about wealth - when you're a multi-billionaire, what more wealth can you possibly need (or want)?

I'm yet to hear about a viable plan to disarm capitalism or convert it into something benign. Some are suggesting ideas, but it's all based on the good will of those who hold that destructive power (not the frontperson), and apparently crave more of it, as Orwel has brilliantly understood so long ago. What a laugh.

Not optimistic at all.

Click to expand...

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, has never been more apparent and I don't see this as an analogy of just communism anymore. It is constantly being flaunted by capitalism and consumerism that if you don't have such and such product you can never be as good or as worthy as the person who has, with people who are famous for nothing other than being famous preaching how we should all make the world better but only if we subscribe to their channel or if we use their products. I first read Orwell when I was 9 which was animal farm and I read it as a story about animals, by the time I understood its subtext I was on about my third read through as a teen, I have tried to make all my children read his books to educate themselves (my Daughters have my sons not so much), I'm not a massive fan of dissecting a book to discover its subtext like they teach in schools but Orwell is one author I think they should but only after they have read and enjoyed the book first.

Animal Farm was a warm-up / sketch for 1984. The good (and bad) thing about 1984 is that you don't really need to look for a subtext - Orwell spells it out for us, in a part that is supposedly a part of a book that the protagonist reads. It's "bad" because some people find this part boring; I thought it was brilliant. Really drove home some powerful ideas (pun intended).
My daughter and my son had to study 1984 in high school, which made me glad (at least they read it), but they were not too happy about being forced to. At least they had a very supportive dad while they did, and all in all it's a good book even just as entertaining fiction.

Marc said:

None of this is new as I remember in college 50 years ago much of what we see today was clearly inevitable and I (we at Westminster) were taught the predictable future in several classes, especially in (of all things mostly biology classes).

Click to expand...

Same here, only more so. I was taught a lot of it in junior high and high school, more in history than in biology classes, as I recall. Probably depended as much on the teachers as the subject. But it was also the subject of conversation among the elders, so I probably picked up as much or more at Fourth of July picnics, football games, and Thanksgiving dinners as I did at school. I and all my friends read 1984 without being forced to, but we didn't study it in school.

I guess "optimism" means thinking things will work out the way you want them to. If that is still "an-end-to-world-hunger-and-peace-in-our-time," I guess the only way I see that happening in my time is by way of some kind of holocaust that destroys all life on the planet. Then there would be no hunger and peace on earth. At least until the aliens showed up.

Being the hard hearted one here, not afraid to ask a question....Most of those areas where the 25,000 people die every day have been "civilized" for 2,000, 3,000, 5,000 or more years, so why is it they cannot or will not raise food like the "developed world" does?

Going a bit further and taking the side of those that don't share or believe in a "fictional deity", can we not look to the science of natural selection, Darwin and all that and accept that not all are strong enough, capable enough, or even just plain deserve to survive? Could it just be "Natures" way of cleaning house? Why should "developed countries" strive, and work, and create and then give it away to those that choose not to? (I'm Baptist so I'm playing devils advocate here and I don't totally subscribe to these thoughts).

Randy said:

Most of those areas where the 25,000 people die every day have been "civilized" for 2,000, 3,000, 5,000 or more years.

Click to expand...

Did you put "civilized" in quotes because you are using some definition of your own? If you rely on the definition found in dictionaries, an area in which 25,000 people starve every day is not civilized pretty much by definition.

Randy said:

can we not look to the science of natural selection, Darwin and all that and accept that not all are strong enough, capable enough, or even just plain deserve to survive?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you are referring to as "we," but I think pretty much anyone can look to the science of natural selection. As the name implies, it is a science that applies only in nature. Civilization is pretty much the opposite of nature, and the forces that drive civilization are political, social, economic, and technological.

Randy said:

Why should "developed countries" strive, and work, and create and then give it away to those that choose not to?

Click to expand...

Countries can't strive, work, or create. Only people can do that. If you meant to say "governments," the only time a government "should" do something is when its laws say it should do it. Everything else is a choice. Governments typically choose to do what the people who run them see as being in the government's best interests, or maybe in their own personal best interests. Corporations and those who run them do the same.