Filed in archive
Ethics in Question
by Miche on November 24, 2007
CSR activists are playing hardball, impatient to let free-market Darwinism decide the fate of business. Fighting for a personal platform, they do not see the damage they cause.
Breaking Ethics News
This Thursday at Dixie State College, Utah, their bi-monthly Business and Ethics Forum to focus on ethics in health care and human resources.
Consumer Reports announces recalls on an alarmingly large collection of children's items for lead.
Mattel, Fisher Price, and others sued for manufacturing and selling items with unlawful quantities of lead.
This Thursday at Dixie State College, Utah, their bi-monthly Business and Ethics Forum to focus on ethics in health care and human resources.
Consumer Reports announces recalls on an alarmingly large collection of children's items for lead.
Mattel, Fisher Price, and others sued for manufacturing and selling items with unlawful quantities of lead.
An article in Townhall argues "when the heavy hand of government is used to change the rules of the game entrepreneurs are prevented from creating better products and consumers suffer the consequences."
The author, Wayne Winegarden, poses a valid point - lobbying in any form, be it lobbying an issue to the government or private business, changes the rules and upsets the balance. Consumers should buy, business should provide, and government should ensure that the buying and providing can happen.
I beg to differ.
The Means are More Important than the End
My proposal is CSR activists are barking up the right tree, but for the wrong reasons. They shouldn't be fighting for companies to mimic or match the activist platform - on that I agree - but activists most certainly should lobby governments and companies for better transparency practices.
Transparency and a face to face consumer base have been shown to accelerate corporate accountability and socially responsible practices. When a company is more able to be held accountable to the public, they are more likely to be socially responsible.
"An example was grocery store chains in Britain that had been competing to "out-green" each other as the most environmental-friendly and organic of grocers..." - The Star Online
The Bursa Malaysia [wiki] stock exchange has the right idea. Last September, Bursa announced they would only list companies who reported their CSR procedures and activities, even if there are none, with a cutoff date of December 31st this year.
So far, the top 100 stocks are on the ball, with 100% compliance. The next 250 however, will likely need to seek out a quick fix or face the consequences.
It would seem Asia is yet again ahead of the game. If only the remaining global economies would take note and follow, the free market could operate as it should - the buyers buy what businesses provide, and government just makes sure those transactions can happen.
Tags:
ethics
csr
malaysia
britain
uk
business
recalls
globalism
transparency
social
social+enterprise
Trackback: http://publish.creative-weblogging.com/publish/mt-tb.pl/103558
Addthis
Ask
Blinklist
del.icio.us
Digg
Fark
Facebook
Google
Lycos
Ma.gnolia
Mr Wong
Netscape
Netvousz
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Slashdot
Tailrank
Technorati
Wink
Yahoo
Vote for Fixing Transparency will Fix Everything: Consumer Cautions:
|
Rating: 10.00 out of 3 vote(s) cast.
|
Subscribe
Use the search to look for other interesting posts
| RSS |  See all blog subscribe options |
 What is RSS? | |
| Yahoo! |
|
| Addthis |
|
| Bloglines |
|
| Newsletter | |
| Follow us on Twitter! |
