Posts Tagged ‘ democracy ’

Dealing with Despots

Each day, the Globe and Mail – one of Canada’s national newspapers – runs a reader poll on a “hot topic.”  Today, in light of current events in Libya and elsewhere, the poll, under the heading “Dealing with Despots,” asks readers, “What is the most important duty for a Canadian business operating in an authoritarian country?” and provides the following response options:

  • To keep corrupt elites from looting revenues owed to locals
  • To protest when human rights abuses are detected
  • To provide local development to workers and communities
  • To insist on democracy development
  •  

    The very structure of the response options reveals one of the most egregious and persistent misperceptions of corporate responsibility: that it’s fundamentally an “OR” decision, that we can either make money and protect our investment or we can fight corruption, protect human rights, promote democracy, and provide community benefits, implying that these actions do not contribute to return on investment.

    In fact, taking a proactive stance on issues of corruption, human rights, community development, and governance can help to establish a more stable government and regulatory regime, build social capital among affected stakeholders, and secure a licence to operate, all enhancing the likelihood of protecting the original corporate investment and achieving a positive ROI. Click here to read more about the poll and its results

    Privacy breach reveals lack of ethical integrity

    It was revealed this week that highly personal information about Sean Bruyea, an outspoken critic of veterans’ affairs in Canada, was included in a 2006 briefing note for a federal cabinet Minister (Psychiatric report of veterans critic inserted in minister’s briefing: documents, Toronto Star, September 21 2010). Apparently, the briefing note was seen by several senior bureaucrats. In addition, Mr. Bruyea’s file was accessed by hundreds of people, who shared Mr. Bruyea’s private information with hundreds more, including political staffers.

    With few exceptions (relating mainly to legal compliance), Canada’s Privacy Act prohibits the use and disclosure of personal information without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, except for the purpose for which the information was originally obtained. In this case, the private information was originally collected to determine Mr. Bruyea’s eligibility under a disability program, but appears to have been used to undermine Mr. Bruyea’s credibility as a policy critic.

    The mis-use and disclosure of Mr. Bruyea’s personal information is an appalling breach of privacy that should concern us for several reasons. Read why here…

    The CSR debate: what are you saying?

    I had the pleasure this morning of taking in the spirited webcast, “CSR and the Role of Business Today”, hosted by public interest communications firm, Fenton, and featuring a group of A-list CSR advocates and detractors.  The list and biographies of panelists, and a link to a video of the debate, are available here.

    Throughout the debate, there were many fine points eloquently made by the panelists, and I encourage you to view the video of the debate, if you were not able to watch it live.  (Even if you did see it, you might get more out of it watching a second time, as I did.)  In particular, if you are a CSR practitioner or advocate looking to strengthen your understanding or articulation of the context of and business case for CSR, you’ll find some good material here.

    I won’t reiterate all the debate highlights (you can check the Twitter feed, using the hashtag #CSRdebate, for the play-by-play), but I would like to consider the anti-CSR case in more detail.  Specifically, I found the arguments made by Professor Aneel Karnani and Chrystia Freeland disingenuous; let me explain why. Read on!

    %d bloggers like this: