Corporate Social Responsibility

Three principles guide my reasoning on corporate social responsibility.

1. You can't change people's motives (mostly)
2. Systems are complex and can't (usually) be solved with one-size-fits-all simple solution
3. Sustainability isn't just a catch phrase

Different motives (or values), like I discussed in a recent post on food, can drive toward the same goals if carefully examined. For example, many people are driven by goals like a healthy place to live for themselves and for their progeny. Companies, driven by returning shareholders value (which is conventionally defined in terms of currency), are motivated by cost reduction and increased revenue. These goals can all be met with similar means. For example, a more sustainable environmental program would require it, on a fundamental level, to be more efficient. A more efficient system would by virtue of being less resource dependent, be less expensive in terms of currency as well.

Systems are complex. We learned from Michael Pollan that just switching to organic isn't going to do either of the things it purports to do: increase your health and decrease your environmental footprint. This is because many foods labeled organic are still produced on factory farms, processed with fossil-fuel-intensive machines, mixed with preservatives, packaged in unnecessary packaging, and shipped long distances. Eating local foods grown using non-industrial methods often can be much less environmentally destructive. However, as we learned from Sarah Murray, it's not just local either. A system that works with its resources rather than against them is more likely to be efficient and take into account the multi-faceted reality of life. Finding ways for multiple parts of a complex system to work in a symbiotic way is a beautiful thing. It's harder and it takes more time (think: evolutionary) but we're complex creatures and have created ways to adapt our modern simplistic ways back into the complex systems we came from. (I'm thinking nomad, to agrarian, to urban ... and back)

The definition of sustainability isn't CFL light bulbs and compost piles (well not necessarily). Sustainability means returning resources to the system in a way that is usable to future generations so that the system continues to thrive. Sustainability isn't as selfless as it sometimes is made out to be. Why do people have children (on a fundamental, evolutionary level)? They have children because they need to sustain themselves and once they get to a certain age, they might need some help with that. The American system isn't as family-oriented as others, but things like pensions, nursing homes, Medicaid, and Social Security are institutionalized versions of the younger generation paying and caring for the older generation--it's another product of specialization. In addition, those children, grandchildren, and other successors pass on the memory and legacy of their predecessors. It's a beautiful system and not at all selfless, though when changing a diaper or giving up a convenience to diminish waste, it can feel that way.

So if we can convince (or remind) corporations that their goals aren't necessarily in conflict with "social responsibility," maybe the world would be a better place. Our propensity towards specialization keeps us from seeing a bigger picture sometimes -- keeps us from seeing ourselves in the larger scheme and therefore disconnects us from the larger "system." As other measures of sustainability (like carbon footprints, community involvement, and employee satisfaction) gain value, maybe the way corporations view sustainability and return will change.