Comments on: The buck stops where??? http://www.marcgunther.com/2007/04/15/the-buck-stops-where/ This blog is about the impact of business on society. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:08:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Greg http://www.marcgunther.com/2007/04/15/the-buck-stops-where/comment-page-1/#comment-5105 Greg Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:09:32 +0000 http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=166#comment-5105 Marc, thanks for the thoughtful response. The SRI movement is an interesting place to think about how people actually seek to influence company behavior on these issues. As you know better than most, some campaigners are seeking to get mainstream funds & investors (as you pointed out recently, like Fidelity & Berkshire Hathaway) to take on social responsibility activities in their investments, such as engagement w/ companies on issues of concern or screening out companies (e.g., those that do business in Sudan). Interestingly, I don't think there's a big movement to try to get mainstream investors to take on the positions you describe, such as screening out all companies that make/sell alcohol or weapons. I see the SRI funds that do employ those screens as an interesting market response to demand from certain investors for vehicles that reflect their values -- but fairly separate from any broader movement to try to make investment funds generally greener, more ethical or more socially responsible. Marc, thanks for the thoughtful response. The SRI movement is an interesting place to think about how people actually seek to influence company behavior on these issues. As you know better than most, some campaigners are seeking to get mainstream funds & investors (as you pointed out recently, like Fidelity & Berkshire Hathaway) to take on social responsibility activities in their investments, such as engagement w/ companies on issues of concern or screening out companies (e.g., those that do business in Sudan). Interestingly, I don’t think there’s a big movement to try to get mainstream investors to take on the positions you describe, such as screening out all companies that make/sell alcohol or weapons. I see the SRI funds that do employ those screens as an interesting market response to demand from certain investors for vehicles that reflect their values — but fairly separate from any broader movement to try to make investment funds generally greener, more ethical or more socially responsible.

]]> By: Marc http://www.marcgunther.com/2007/04/15/the-buck-stops-where/comment-page-1/#comment-5053 Marc Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:57:46 +0000 http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=166#comment-5053 Some good comments here, which are just what I'd hoped for--to stimulate some thought about where the lines should be drawn. To Adam's point about a "red herring," I think the entire point of the movie Supersize Me (which I enjoyed) was to argue, humorously, that McDonald's makes people sick. This is blurring lines. I totally believe in transparency as a principle in almost any industry, and so would support pressures to get food companies to be open about what's in their products and their caloric content. I favor GMO labeling, too, which we don't have in this country. Greg, I'm with you on vending machines in schools. Public schools should be selling junk or calorie-laden drinks to raise money for education. And companies shouldn't push them to do so. As for companies selling cluster munitions or landmines or the Caterpillar bulldozers (and I don't know the facts in those cases) I'd agree those are products that shouldn't be made or sold. But...I would not agree with SRI funds that screen all weapons makers out of their funds. That makes no sense in a post 9/11 world. Some good comments here, which are just what I’d hoped for–to stimulate some thought about where the lines should be drawn.

To Adam’s point about a “red herring,” I think the entire point of the movie Supersize Me (which I enjoyed) was to argue, humorously, that McDonald’s makes people sick. This is blurring lines. I totally believe in transparency as a principle in almost any industry, and so would support pressures to get food companies to be open about what’s in their products and their caloric content. I favor GMO labeling, too, which we don’t have in this country.

Greg, I’m with you on vending machines in schools. Public schools should be selling junk or calorie-laden drinks to raise money for education. And companies shouldn’t push them to do so. As for companies selling cluster munitions or landmines or the Caterpillar bulldozers (and I don’t know the facts in those cases) I’d agree those are products that shouldn’t be made or sold. But…I would not agree with SRI funds that screen all weapons makers out of their funds. That makes no sense in a post 9/11 world.

]]> By: Greg http://www.marcgunther.com/2007/04/15/the-buck-stops-where/comment-page-1/#comment-5043 Greg Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:05:15 +0000 http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=166#comment-5043 Yes, the line where the company's responsibility ends must be carefully drawn. In the case of consumer goods, it makes sense not to draw that line too widely, both to make sure that some individual accountability remains, and because in may cases the company's decision shouldn't be substituted for a political/democratic process. (Not in theory, anyway; the fact that those processes are themselves often under excessive corporate influence will have to wait for another post.) But what about these examples? - Marketing of unhealthy foods to children in schools, via deals that put soda & snack food vending machines in schools. The food industry has largely stopped doing this, thanks to a deal w/ Bill Clinton last year, and I think this is right - kids in school are the definition of a captive audience, and one without full adult judgment (or the direct oversight of their parents). Is this also a matter of government responsibility? Absolutely - schools should resist this kind of intrusion. But I'm not willing to let the companies off the hook in this case. - Making products that you know are used for purposes that (arguably) violate human rights. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, has criticized Caterpillar for making modified, armored versions of its bulldozers & selling them to the US, which then gives them to Israel, which uses them to bulldoze Palestinian homes & farms, either belonging to the families of suicide bombers or in the process of erecting Israel's security fence. (Such a bulldozer killed American activist Rachel Corrie in Gaza in 2003.) Human rights and humanitarian groups say cluster munitions, dumb landmines and other weapons have no legitimate use; these are other examples of products that perhaps simply should not be made, or should not be sold to certain governments. Of course the governments in question should refrain from buying them, or using them in the ways being objected to, but (much like the failure of the Chinese government to enforce its labor laws) that's probably not going to happen soon, so I think it's fair to hold the companies to account. Yes, the line where the company’s responsibility ends must be carefully drawn. In the case of consumer goods, it makes sense not to draw that line too widely, both to make sure that some individual accountability remains, and because in may cases the company’s decision shouldn’t be substituted for a political/democratic process. (Not in theory, anyway; the fact that those processes are themselves often under excessive corporate influence will have to wait for another post.) But what about these examples?
- Marketing of unhealthy foods to children in schools, via deals that put soda & snack food vending machines in schools. The food industry has largely stopped doing this, thanks to a deal w/ Bill Clinton last year, and I think this is right – kids in school are the definition of a captive audience, and one without full adult judgment (or the direct oversight of their parents). Is this also a matter of government responsibility? Absolutely – schools should resist this kind of intrusion. But I’m not willing to let the companies off the hook in this case.
- Making products that you know are used for purposes that (arguably) violate human rights. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, has criticized Caterpillar for making modified, armored versions of its bulldozers & selling them to the US, which then gives them to Israel, which uses them to bulldoze Palestinian homes & farms, either belonging to the families of suicide bombers or in the process of erecting Israel’s security fence. (Such a bulldozer killed American activist Rachel Corrie in Gaza in 2003.) Human rights and humanitarian groups say cluster munitions, dumb landmines and other weapons have no legitimate use; these are other examples of products that perhaps simply should not be made, or should not be sold to certain governments. Of course the governments in question should refrain from buying them, or using them in the ways being objected to, but (much like the failure of the Chinese government to enforce its labor laws) that’s probably not going to happen soon, so I think it’s fair to hold the companies to account.

]]> By: Adam http://www.marcgunther.com/2007/04/15/the-buck-stops-where/comment-page-1/#comment-5021 Adam Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:10:16 +0000 http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=166#comment-5021 oops -- i meant the CSR types AREN'T asking McD's to get out of their core business... oops — i meant the CSR types AREN’T asking McD’s to get out of their core business…

]]> By: Adam http://www.marcgunther.com/2007/04/15/the-buck-stops-where/comment-page-1/#comment-5020 Adam Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:08:46 +0000 http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=166#comment-5020 There's a bit of red herring in this piece, in that CSR types are really asking McDonald to get out of its core business. (Some healthy food activists, tilting at windmills, are, but that's really a different discussion.) Where corporate social responsibility comes in is in the areas where a fast food or famly restaurant company is behaving IRresponsibly... For instance, while they (admirably) add healthy choices to their menu, they resist the idea of openly disclosing the calorie and fat content of their standard menu items. Obviously, the double cheeseburger, egg mcbacon, or nacho platter are more appealing (because of all that delicious fat) than the white meat chicken salad, and they just don't want to have to tell you just how dangerous the "less healthy" meals actually are. There's just no justification for feeding someone a meal with 3000 calories and 40 grams of fat without telling them ahead of time. That's irresponsible, and that's an example of where corporate conduct needs to change. Personal responsibility is all well and good, but individuals have a hard time exercising it when the information they need to make good decisions is being intentionally withheld from them... There’s a bit of red herring in this piece, in that CSR types are really asking McDonald to get out of its core business. (Some healthy food activists, tilting at windmills, are, but that’s really a different discussion.) Where corporate social responsibility comes in is in the areas where a fast food or famly restaurant company is behaving IRresponsibly… For instance, while they (admirably) add healthy choices to their menu, they resist the idea of openly disclosing the calorie and fat content of their standard menu items. Obviously, the double cheeseburger, egg mcbacon, or nacho platter are more appealing (because of all that delicious fat) than the white meat chicken salad, and they just don’t want to have to tell you just how dangerous the “less healthy” meals actually are. There’s just no justification for feeding someone a meal with 3000 calories and 40 grams of fat without telling them ahead of time. That’s irresponsible, and that’s an example of where corporate conduct needs to change. Personal responsibility is all well and good, but individuals have a hard time exercising it when the information they need to make good decisions is being intentionally withheld from them…

]]> By: Tom Konrad http://www.marcgunther.com/2007/04/15/the-buck-stops-where/comment-page-1/#comment-5002 Tom Konrad Mon, 16 Apr 2007 05:33:16 +0000 http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=166#comment-5002 A tricky subject... and I don't think I have an answer either... but I agree that we have a tendency to blame others for our own personal failings... and the American intitution of the lawsuit is a convienint forum for that. On the other hand, people who say that a corporation's sole responsibility is to make money for its owners have it wrong... a company's responsibility is to serve it's owners' *interests* without infringing on the rights of others. I submit that the owners of any company have an interest in a healthy, peaceful world on which to live. They also have an interest in owning a company that does not act in ways they find morally reprehensible. A tricky subject… and I don’t think I have an answer either… but I agree that we have a tendency to blame others for our own personal failings… and the American intitution of the lawsuit is a convienint forum for that.

On the other hand, people who say that a corporation’s sole responsibility is to make money for its owners have it wrong… a company’s responsibility is to serve it’s owners’ *interests* without infringing on the rights of others. I submit that the owners of any company have an interest in a healthy, peaceful world on which to live. They also have an interest in owning a company that does not act in ways they find morally reprehensible.

]]>