Keynote address by Jan Pronk: ''Corporate Social Responsibility. Don't put all your eggs in one...

7/30/2019 Keynote address by Jan Pronk: ''Corporate Social Responsibility. Don't put all your eggs in one basket''

1/6

Corporate Social Responsibility. Dont Put All Your Eggs in One Basket

WorldconnectorJan Pronk,professor ofTheory and Practice of International Development at the

Institute of Social Studies in The Hague, held the following Keynote Address during the 2nd

Conference on Global Social Responsibility on 28 February 2013 in Dhaka, Bangladesh. For more

information and publications by Jan Pronk, visit his website:http://www.janpronk.nl/index.html.

What do we have in mind when we speak about sustainability? I have to confess that twenty years ago

I was not particularly thrilled by the concept. Sustainability had the flavour of something static, a

standstill, not change, only more of the same. It seemed boring and dull. I did prefer innovation,

renewal, progress, and growth.

However, I learned to understand that growth can wreck development, which will result in regress

rather than progress, or in progress for some, but regress for many. That would mean more poverty,

more inequality and fewer chances for many more children to survive, let alone to be happy.

So, sustainability demands fundamental change. It is the opposite of a boring status quo. Sustainability

is a challenge, an adventure. It requires a forward looking approach and a fighting spirit.

That was the spirit which prevailed at the World Summit on Environment and Development, in Rio de

Janeiro, in 1992, where we adopted a new agenda for the future: Agenda 21.

However, since then we have not made much progress:

- Still one third of world population is poor or very poor. Inequalities have increased, between and

within countries

- The international economic system shows signs of bankruptcy: financial crisis, resulting in economic

distortions, both globally and nationally.

- Erosion of values, resulting in unbalanced priority setting: abundance of luxury goods, but shortages

of basic amenities such as primary health care, nutrition and drinking water.

- Deterioration of the natural environment: floods and water shortages, pollution, climate change,

deforestation, and less fertile land, risking the poor today more than the middle classes, and risking

future generations across the board.

These phenomena manifest themselves in all countries. In Bangladesh you have your proper share of

all of them.

Addressing these tendencies does not only require embracing new concepts and new broad agendas,

but concrete action: new priorities, new policies, new decision making procedures, and new forms of

cooperation, including partnerships between all stakeholders.

Let me share with you some lessons of experience gained during our efforts to translate concepts such

as sustainability and responsibility into action. Here are seven dos and donts:
http://www.janpronk.nl/index.htmlhttp://www.janpronk.nl/index.htmlhttp://www.janpronk.nl/index.htmlhttp://www.janpronk.nl/index.html


2/6

First: Do not fake sustainability.

Sustaining sustainability, so to say, requires fundamental structural change in patterns of investment,

production, trade and consumption. To continue harming peoples welfare and the natural

environment, though providing compensation for harmful effects, is nothing more than buying off

unsustainable behaviour, faking sustainability. Planting trees in order to compensate for ongoing CO2

emissions is no solution. Climate change ought to be modified and slowed down, not indulged and

made good. Providing financial assistance to developing countries in order to buy a license for fishing

ships from abroad, using sophisticated technologies to clear out coastal fishing waters, is an ostrich

policy. Let us not fool ourselves by focusing on compensation for unsustainable practices, rather than

turning back those very practices themselves.

Second: Do not romanticize CSR

Win-wineverybody will benefit is an attractive option. But it is not always possible. On the

contrary: all societies are full of inherently conflicting interests. Choices must be made.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a fascinating concept. What would provide greater

satisfaction than corporate behaviour in the interests of all people everywhere, labourers, consumers

and shareholders, present people and future generations, and also in the interest of nature, our planet,

and our physical environment? Who wouldnt go for this? However, dont be romantic. Markets are

ruthless. The main interest of a corporation is to stay in the market and to continue its operations. That

is legitimate, but it will limit the viability of CSR.

Why? Because corporate social responsibility implies a different cost benefit analysis. CSR means that

the corporation sees after its own interests, including those of its workers, but also respects consumers

rights and the rights of people affected by its operations, present people and future generations. In a

market economy many of these interests are considered to be external effects, not included in market

prices. This holds true both for so called external benefits (such as an enhancement of public health

due to corporate hygiene) as well as external costs (such as pollution).

Corporate behaviour short of CSR implies that the corporation will be guided first and foremost by the

costs and benefits it will carry and cash itself, both short and long term. CSR goes beyond these

considerations. As long as a CEO believes that meeting sustainability conditions is sound business,

because it will enhance the image of the corporation, it will be rational to bear the costs involved. The

costs are known, but to which extent external benefits to society will result in gains for the company

itself, is uncertain. When the aspirations of competitors diverge from CSR, cost differences will rise,

and initial CSR benefits for the corporation will disappear, in particular when consumers would no

longer be willing to pay higher prices. The company will then have no other option than discarding


3/6

CSR, on penalty of steadily increasing losses, shrinking activities and bankruptcy. Markets may be

liberal, but they are not generous.

So, sustaining sustainability cannot be left to the market. Dont be romantic. Public political choices

are unavoidable: create a level playing field for all companies on the market, enforce corporate

behaviour in accordance with public and peoples interest.

Third: Build up countervailing public market power.

Governments should not lean backwards, relying on NGOs, hoping that a stakeholder dialogue

between NGOs and big corporations can keep the latter on track. Admittedly, there are quite a few

CEOs with sound business judgement, willing to take a risk in favour of CSR. There are also many

highly dedicated professionals, applying technological solutions and business practices in accordancewith conditions of sustainability. Since a decade or two scores of students, highly committed to hold

up principles of social responsibility and environmental sustainability, have found a job within a

corporation. But they have to face shareholders, most of whom having a completely different mind-

set: short term maximization of profits and fast accumulation of capital, rather than securing peoples

welfare and preserving the planet. When big financial power is involved, there is no balance between

people, planet and profit. Profit will always win. When push comes to shove, in a stakeholders

dialogue NGOs, defending the interests of people and planet, cannot but lose.

Confronted with corporate power NGOs may choose a strategy of accommodation, betting on the

long run, negotiating some slight successes, hoping that in the end reason will prevail and big financial

corporations will convert to sustainability. I am afraid that history demonstrates the opposite. Big oil

and gas companies, minerals corporations, power plants, large plantations (timber, palm oil, biofuels),

pharmaceutical and chemical industries, food and beverage industries, commercial advertisement, the

arms industry and - last but not least - transnational financial corporations and banks, demonstrate a

pattern of behaviour which is bound to clash with requirements of sustainability. Misapplication of

insecticides and pesticides, forced introduction of genetically modified crops, emission of greenhouse

gasses, insufficient testing of possibly hazardous chemicals, pollution of seas, rivers, ground-, surface

and drinking water, irreversible cutting of forests, risky mining, and so on, these practices can only be

curbed with the help of strong public countervailing power. The power of NGOs, irrespective of the

number of people they represent, will always be smaller than the power of capital. Codes of behaviour,

for instance regarding child labour, minimum wages or a safe working environment, will never be

sufficient. They are easily dodged and violated, with impunity.


4/6

So, governments should not shy away from law making, imposing rules and regulations, forceful

inspections, effective compliance mechanisms, enforcement, and vigorous sanctions. Striving for

sustainability is not a game, but a fight.

Fourth: PSR is a precondition for CSR.

Achieving sustainability demands that public authorities represent the interests of the people and the

planet, and act accordingly. This implies vigorous action against corruption, to ensure that

governments, parliamentarians and the bureaucracy will not be lured into serving merely the interests

of capital and profit. It means zero tolerance for double bookkeeping, full transparency of public

decision making and a halt to commercial lobbying behind the scenes. It also implies democratisation

of public decision making, broad information of the general public and full accountability of public

authorities to their constituencies. All these political conditions should guarantee public social

responsibility. PSR is a precondition for CSR to become a solid basis for trustworthy market

operations.

Fifth: Be ambitious, but cautious

Achieving sustainability requires urgent and radical changes in economic behaviour. However, be

cautious: radical and urgent is not the same as trading off one particular risk - say, climate change - for

another, such as nuclear disaster. Exchanging unsustainable conditions into sustainable directions is a

process. The focus ought not to be on end states considerations only, but also, and perhaps more

importantly, on the necessary transitions towards that end. Timing and directing transitions and

choosing the valid characteristics of those transitions requires precaution. This holds true for all

transactions that are initiated in order to establish sustainable social and economic circumstances: the

energy transition, greening the economy, urban renewal, waste reduction and recycling, and transitions

in sanitation, and clean and safe water supply. Mistakes which have irreversible consequences will

wreck the very objective of sustainability. Confronted with fragile ecological conditions it is better to

go for small and slow, rather than big and fast. Learning from experience and fostering resilience

implies making choices in favour of reversible change.

Sixth: Go in stages and stay within your own domain.

Changing an unsustainable status quo sometimes will demand a jump in the opposite direction.

However, policy wise it may be preferable to widen the scale of change gradually, introducing

experiments and pilot schemes and scaling them up to the level of the sector as a whole, and sideways

to other regions.

Going in stages requires choosing the right order of those stages. Sustainability and corporate social

responsibility should be brought in right at the beginning of a business enterprise. Starting up a

business with the sole objective of financial sustainability, with the intention to incorporate social and

environmental sustainability only later, may be rational, given prevailing market conditions, but may


5/6

result in postponing socially responsible behaviour indefinitely. What may look rational is not yet

reasonable. After all, risk taking is part of good business behaviour. And taking risks does not mean

unloading risks on to others, passing the buck.

Governments can help businesses accepting reasonable risks by guaranteeing a level playing field with

the help of rules and regulations, equally binding all corporations, both foreign and domestic.

However, again, governments must be trustworthy themselves and demonstrate transparent political

behaviour. Governments will have to define ambitious long run sustainability objectives, for public

policies as well as market operations, but in doing so governments should understand that market

partners will only invest in green technologies, if they can trust that policies will not change

arbitrarily.

Establishing Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) can be the right approach towards agreeing on

transitions such as the ones mentioned earlier. Neither governments, nor business can do it alone.

However, be aware of your own particular domain. For governments this means: proper (democratic)

setting of rules. For business: proper (social) market behaviour. And between them: proper allocation

of responsibilities.

Can subsidies play a role in bridging conflicting interests between the government and private

business? Here again caution should prevail. Private business cannot claim that striving towards

sustainability is only affordable if they are rewarded out of public funds. And even when everybody

agrees that such efforts are in the interest of the general public, governments should be reluctant

applying this instrument rather than setting rules. Public subsidies often are an easy way out: costly in

terms of finance, but relatively cheap compared to the alternative: standing firm against powerful

corporations seeking their own profits only. Public rule setting may be politically more difficult, but it

is the best way: democratic, equitable, without discrimination.

This is not only the case for individual nations, but also internationally. Western industrialized

countries, subsidizing private business companies in order to enable those meeting public and

environmental standards, are putting developing countries, which lack adequate means, in a

disadvantaged position. International cooperation resulting in common rules is a much better

alternative.

Seventh: People first

Sustainability is often seen as an environmental problem only. It is not. There is an environment-poverty nexus. Environmental degradation and deterioration of livelihoods result in ongoing


6/6

deprivation. The poor in our world have been pushed towards the worst places on planet earth. They

are the first victims of environmental disasters, climate change, water pollution, soil erosion and other

dysfunctions of the present economic system. So, environmental sustainability, besides being a major

objective in its own right, is also a precondition for social and economic justice.

The opposite is also true. Putting an end to poverty, besides being a first moral and political

imperative, is a condition sine qua non for meeting environmental sustainability targets. Achieving

overall sustainability requires peoples participation, all people, first and foremost well-to-do and

middle class people, but also the poor. The poor are not in a position to give high priority to

environmental sustainability, if they consider this a luxury, affordable to the rich, but not to them.

Widening economic inequalities and persisting absolute poverty are a major drag on sustainability.

So, we need a two track approach. Both tracks should lead to greater peoples welfare: present people

and people yet unborn. Our responsibility concerns also the protection of the developmental

capabilities of future generations. People first.

After all, development is for, of and by people. Development implies guaranteeing human rights: the

rights of workers, women, children and the yet unborn. Development requires peoples participation,and a bottom up approach. Where people are in control of their own resources, their own habitat and

livelihood, they will take care of them, and make the right choices, right for themselves, right for their

offspring, right to planet earth and its people.

In many societies we witness excellent small scale bottom up initiatives towards sustainability. This is

a reason for optimism. However, let us not fool ourselves by relying on such initiatives only. Both

environmental sustainability, social justice, peoples welfare and overall human development require

political choices beyond the capacity of local communities, grass root movements, NGOs and private

business. Such initiatives are crucial, but not sufficient. At the end of the day, achieving a sustainable

society, in which all stakeholders can be held responsible for peoples welfare as a whole, is a matter

of politics, at both the local, the national and the international level.

Keynote address by Jan Pronk: ''Corporate Social Responsibility. Don't put all your eggs in one...

Documents

Transcript of Keynote address by Jan Pronk: ''Corporate Social Responsibility. Don't put all your eggs in one...