So, picking up from the last post where we left off with an
article from the CSR-Reporting website (found here:
http://csr-reporting.blogspot.co.il/2012/11/false-claims-in-sustainability-reports.html)
covering research that revealed a significant difference between claims made in
GRI Sustainability Reporting and what actually gets reported (which was
unpublished research as of November 17 2012 that was conducted by the Vienna
Team in collaboration with Middlesex University London lead by Dr. Sepideh
Parsa and Dr. Ian Roper); wherein we can see that the vast majority of
corporations are reporting falsehoods, are reporting inaccurately, or claim to
be reporting but are not even reporting at all.
Why so? Well, I
would venture that this would be expected for the following: Regardless of the
motive, whether it be ultraistic or self-serving, for a corporation to
self-regulate and comply with CSR reporting, the bottom line is that those with
a controlling interest in these corporations, the shareholders, are looking for
maximum returns on their investments which means that the corporations profit
comes first, and that the consequences of the corporate actions come
second. Thus, if it is more profitable
to ‘cheat’ on the CSR reporting then that is what will happen. Furthermore, if
complying with CSR initiatives threatens the survival of corporations then that
would be reason and justification for corporations to not allow any reporting
(tell on itself in essence) that would undermine its ability to survive. Another reason, is that the shareholders are
not stakeholders, usually, and thus are not really feeling the consequences of
the corporate practices and thus it is easy to turn a blind eye and ignore the inconsistencies
in the CSR reporting by the corporations they own.
So, what we are left here with is an interesting dynamic:
and that is the corporations are left with finding the right balance between
making their CSR reports, which of course is considered to be a competitive
advantage, and also keeping profits up as much as possible in order to appease
their shareholders and also ensure their survival and continued existence. I mean, this is a real test of self honesty
even on an individual level, in that would you tell on yourself / disclose your
secrets to another if that meant that it may mean that you would loose money,
profits, make you less competitive? So,
that balancing point is where the company can be transparent and honest yet
still keep profits up within a satisfactory zone all at the same time. Thus, this means for most companies that
they are going to have fudge the numbers to make this work. This is just plain
common sense.
So, how can we change the system to ensure that corporations
will report accurately and make significant changes to their practices that
will benefit all / the stakeholders?
Obviously there needs to be a change in the frame-work of the system
because with the way the system is set-up now, there will be no true corporate
responsibility taken by corporations as it really is not in their best
interest, ultimately, as evidenced by the poor participation in reporting and
making real changes thus far. Thus, the
framework of the economic system needs to be adjusted in a way that the
corporations still work within self-interest / making profits but yet that
self-interest will lead them to make real changes. The economic system itself must change because the alternative to
changing the system and attempting to police or enforce such a code of ethics
would literally be impossible on a global scale within the realization that
there just is not enough man-power, time, and ways and means to really be able
to get inside the corporations and ensure their compliance. Thus, the compliance must be considered
essential to corporations, by corporations, for their survival - just as
non-compliance is in essence essential to their survival now – and that will
only be achieved by making some adjustments to the economic system.
Another point to consider, is that within the current
economic structure, how can we even trust that CSR / eco-friendly / socially
responsible measures taken by environmental groups and NGOs are always working
in our / the general populace / the stakeholders, and the earth’s best
interest? There is strong evidence, if
one spends any time researching this
point, that the CSR and Green concepts have been used to corner markets, drive
commodity prices up, control resources and markets, and pass oppressive laws or
push for potentially oppressive laws such as the ‘carbon tax’ scheme /
meme. It can be argued that this CSR
movement has been used as a platform to create memes that the populace accepts
as accurate and for their good to then lobby for 'eco-friendly' government
policies that are really more like ‘Trojan Horses’ that when enforced actually
play into the hand of those behind the scenes seeking profit and further
oppressing the people. There is strong
evidence that the very corporations themselves use the environmental movement
to control prices, markets, and resources.
The oil companies often times fund the very environmental movements that
they appear to be in opposition to, as an example.
So, in sum, CSR and the related green movements are all well
and needed, but within the current economic system structure, these initiative
and movements are either ineffective or used to manipulate and control markets
for the benefits of the shareholders and not the stakeholders.
So, back the question: how can we change our system to
ensure that corporations will report accurately and actually make real changes
upon themselves within a point of self-regulation? The answer to this question is not simply in the details, yet it
is simple within the point of considering how our economic system is currently
structured. So, there are a couple of
points to consider here:
1. LIG. A Living Income Guarantee needs to be
initiated. So, I ask the question: Who
ultimately is in control of the corporations?
Answer: Those who buy their products and services, within the point that
if corporations loose their customer base, they may seize to exist / go out of
business. So, ultimately, who is the
corporation appeasing within all of its activities? The customer. So, even
within the degree of fraud and manipulation in reporting and green movements
today, the customer is ultimately in mind.
It’s like an abusive relationship.
If one party in relationship can 'get away' with it, they will, and they
will continue to do, so long as the desired relationship stays in tact. However, once that relationship is
threatened, the abuser will change his/her behavior in order to save the
relationship, if possible. And even if
that change of behavior is within self-interest, the change will still be made
in a way that will benefit all parties if the abusee decides to no longer take
the stance as the abusee and force the abuser to change within that
stance.
Thus, how do we get the people to take that stand? Right now, we as the people / the
‘stakeholders’, are not taking that stand that says 'no you don’t. You will not abuse the resources and the
people for the sake of your own profit.'
And the primary reason is that most people only have enough money to
meet basic survival needs as most people are existing in the bottom level of
Maslow's hierarchy of needs. However,
if people have enough money, they will move beyond survival and then start
really looking at how to make themselves and this world a better place.
You see, right now, most are only able to shop for things
based upon price. It may matter in the
back of someone's mind about all the abuses that were required to bring that
product to market at that price, but if that is all one is able to afford and that
is what one needs - that product will be bought regardless. You see, corporations have us at our knees
right now within the principle of 'beggars cannot be choosers.' The general populace simply does not have the
money to truly vote with their money and thus corporations do not have to really
answer to the consumer or the environment because either way, we are still
buying from them.
Thus, a LIG will enable the populace to start voting with
their money so long as we are able to structure it in a way that the LIG will
lift people enough out of poverty to do so.
The LIG will create a new pool of money found in the common man zone
instead of only in the upper echelon of whom primarily are the shareholders of
corporations. The shareholders have so
much money that they are disconnected with the realities on the ground and the
abuses therein. Shareholders are
concerned with increasing their wealth.
That is why they are shareholders in the first place. Thus, an LIG will equalize that playing
field in giving the common man voting rights with their money and thus lifting
them up into a form of ‘shareholder’ as well as their existing status of
stakeholder.
2. Dare I say
Nationalization? Lets call it:
Converting Stakeholders (the common man) to Shareholders. And lets start with nationalization of
essential resources and perhaps the energy sector. Through nationalization, stakeholders, will suddenly become
shareholders of the resources that corporations use to bring energy, raw
materials such as lumber, food, and water to market for consumption. That means that wealthy hidden elite will
not be in control behind the scenes in a way to increase their profits at the
expense of us all. That also means that
people living within the borders of each country will suddenly have the wealth
of these resources and thus will be able to sell or trade these natural
resources to other countries or corporations.
Once established, we can hold a democratic Internet voting system, in
the form of a liquid democracy, accessible to the people / the citizens of
certain geographic areas - to vote for how they would like the natural
resources to be handled.
If this were to occur, then corporations would have to
change their ways to conform to the laws of the land regarding these resources,
because the owners of the resources, the people, will demand it; or these
corporations would have to go somewhere else where these nationalizations have
not occurred, YET. Can anyone give me a
good reason why 'nationalization' of the resources would be so demonized and
how actually benefits from the demonization of the concept of nationalization?
3. Increase
Awareness: This is already happening in the CSR / Green movements. This needs to continue and then be
streamlined into a unified movement that is brought to the attention of all. Thus, when people have the money through LIG, and have ownership
of the resources through Nationalization - then they will make better decisions
/ votes as to how to manage this.
Within this public awareness that needs to be increased, as
well as we need to de-polarize the movement and bring it into a practical point
of consideration where we all as one see, realize, and understand the
consequences and implications of our actions within the current state of
affairs, within a fact-based platform.
As compared to where we are now, which has this CSR / ECO / Social
awareness movement polarized between left and right / liberal vs. conservative,
where the left embraces this movement and anything that comes with this
movement, even the manipulated aspects of this movement that are contrived by
certain groups to corner markets and drive up prices etc., and the right which
rejects this movement in its entirety.
Thus within this polarization, all are consumed with the
energy of right verses wrong and not are looking at the practical points that
are right here in front of us. I mean,
we do have a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean that is the size of the United
States, don’t we? Can't we start
discussions on these points without getting all polarized into groups based on
right vs. wrong? So, the depolarization
of this movement needs to occur so that people can start looking at this
practically, and within that we can start really creating solutions that can be
implemented through laws or mandates or simply the influence carried out with
the populace who now has money through LIG or part ownership of at least the
natural resources.
Once this is in place, corporations will have no other
choice but to make decisions that are best for all in their practices or else
face the prospect of going extinct / out of business. Let's do this.
No comments:
Post a Comment