Corporate Social Responsibility part 7 – The Role of Governments in Promoting Responsible Business Practices

Corporate Social Responsibility 10 Comments

This is the seventh post in a series on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Today I would like to discuss the role of governments in promoting CSR.

One view is that CSR, by definition, is the function of business, not government. Under this view, business, not government, is in the best position to manage CSR in an effective manner. If governments intervene, they will simply mess things up.

I disagree. Governments should, and do, play an active role – particularly in terms of defining expectations, setting positive examples and rewarding ethical conduct. 

 
What should governments do?

In my opinion, the role of governments in promoting responsible business practices can be summarized in seven steps as outlined below:

 

• Set laws to define minimum standards of behavior.

This is the most basic function of governments in relation to CSR.

Companies have no mandate to decide upon minimum acceptable standards of behavior – governments do. Governments, therefore, not companies, need to define minimum requirements through legislation.

 

• Develop frameworks for ethical business practice.

This can be done at a national level, at an international level, or both.

At a national level, India’s Ten Point Social Charter provides an excellent example. The UN Global Compact, which stipulates ten core principles relating to human rights, the environment and corruption, provides an international example.

In both of the cases above, compliance with the content of the document is not mandatory. However, both documents clearly outline core principles which companies are expected to follow.

Governments must clearly define the standards required for ethical corporations. Businesses that seek to be responsible must follow these standards.

 

• Favor ethical companies in procurement.

Government departments, entrusted with the use of taxpayers’ money, should consider the ethical practices of potential suppliers in their procurement decisions.

Only companies with positive ethical practices should be rewarded with taxpayers’ money.

 

• Set an example.

Governments should aim to conduct the affairs of their own departments in a manner which is beyond reproach.

Leadership is done by example. Governments must therefore demonstrate ethical and responsible conduct by practising it within their own operations.

 

• Use fiscal policy to encourage and reward ethical behavior.

Tax credits or subsidies can be provided to encourage certain types of ethical behavior. One example may be hiring staff from particularly disadvantaged groups, like those who suffer from physical or mental disability.

Tax credits and subsidies can also be used to promote investment in certain types of technology. Renewable energy is a prime example.

 

• Work with industry and other stakeholders in the development of voluntary codes of conduct.

Industry and other key stakeholders are usually in the best position understand the particular requirements of their industry. Accordingly, governments should not play an overbearing role in this area.

However, governments have a role to play in ensuring that such codes address the needs of all relevant stakeholders, as well as meeting expectations of the general public.

 

• Sponsor co-ordination and training.

Many CSR projects operate at an individual company level. Governments can play an active role in fostering and promoting co-operation and coordination of individual projects which operate within the same area.

Governments can also foster learning and development by organizing workshops or other forums to provide opportunities for companies to share their knowledge and experience.

 
Conclusion

Governments should seek a proactive role in promoting sound ethical practices in business.

This should include defining expectations, setting a positive example and rewarding business for sound ethical practices.

 
Over to You:

Your thoughts, opinions, and perspectives in relation to the role of governments in promoting responsible business behavior are most welcome.

Please feel free to express your opinion by clicking on the ‘comments’ section at the head of this post.

 

10 Responses to “Corporate Social Responsibility part 7 – The Role of Governments in Promoting Responsible Business Practices”

  1. Mike Harmon Says:
    July 11th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Well said

  2. Brad Shorr Says:
    July 11th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    Andrew, while there is merit in your proposals and make a great deal of sense in the abstract, I would much prefer government to lead by example to promote ethical behavior, period. Ethical behavior can’t be legislated, nor can it even be persuasively encouraged by a body that itself behaves marginally (The U.N., for instance). Were the government to reward ethical behavior (with our tax dollars) with any set of incentives, I don’t see how the process could avoid becoming politicized and corrupted. Fundamentally, I am uncomfortable with a government being the arbiter of what constitutes ethical behavior. I think we as individuals have to decide what is ethical, and a governing body that sets a great example can help each of us make a better, more informed determination.

    Brad Shorrs last blog post..Super Valuable Communication Efficiency Tip

  3. Karen Swim Says:
    July 12th, 2008 at 2:58 am

    Andrew, Brad took the words right out of my mouth. Here in the U.S. it would be hypocritical for our government to draft standards for ethical or socially responsible behavior which is why I was particularly drawn to your point about setting an example. In this country, money is the foundation for all acts and corporations are able to leverage our government for policies that feed or protect their bottom line. We are sorely in need of ethical leaders that will not bow to the pressures of politics or money.

    Karen Swims last blog post..Embrace Your Obstacles

  4. drew Says:
    July 12th, 2008 at 10:10 am

    Brad/Karen,

    Your points are certainly valid.

    I guess in writing this post, I adopted a normative viewpoint, and considered what should happen in an ideal world.

    In an ideal world, governments, as representatives of the people, could be trusted to reward ethical behavior in a fair and reasonable manner. Unfortunately, however, we live in the real world, where the process of favoritism and reward based upon ethical behavior easily becomes corrupted, and industries with considerable political muscle tend to benefit from such processes at the expense of those with less political muscle.

    So, I certainly see your point about the dangers of favoring any companies or industries in the real world.

    I do see the point both of you make about governments setting standards for ethical behavior when many governments around the world fail to adopt ethical practices themselves, and this underscores the importance of ethical conduct from govenments.

    I do believe that governments can set broad frameworks for ethical behavior. Governments should not be overly prescriptive in defining ethical behavior, but setting broad frameworks like the UN Social Charter at least gives busisness a map or guideline in setting their own ethical policies.

    Cheers

    Andrew

  5. Lauren Bloom Says:
    July 13th, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Hi Andrew,

    With due respect to my fellow commenters, I think your observations are right on. If making money was the only measure for corporate success, we’d have no environmental laws, no labor laws, no antitrust laws, no fraud prevention laws, and we’d be in one heck of a mess. The subprime mortgage meltdown that’s wreaking havoc across the globe is a marvelous example of what happens when the urge to make money runs amok. While the laws that prohibit fraud didn’t prevent the crisis, under those laws there will be trials, convictions, and civil suits that result in damages being paid to innocent, injured people. Without those laws, we’d see a lot more of the same.

    I grow increasingly frustrated with the “the market is God” thinking that drives so many business theorists today. It would be lovely if everyone who worked in business was honest, honorable, and committed to making a profit while doing no harm. Until that day arrives, government definitely has a role to play in keeping business from doing permanent damage in the name of short-term profits.

    Lauren

  6. Karen Swim Says:
    July 14th, 2008 at 12:06 am

    Andrew, your points were great and I am all for ideal! I think living in the US however, I have unfortunately seen less than ideal. To Lauren’s point, I am not suggesting that government should not have a role only that as it presently stands when government imposes law it further perverts the practice. A perfect example is the adoption of CSR laws following Enron. Laws designed to keep companies honest and protect employees and shareholders have been used to convict ordinary citizens. Right now I have a friend who was the victim of one of those laws (not a thief, murderer, rapist or pedophile, with no criminal history), a business woman who was swindled in a deal now serving 7 years in jail. Her story is not unique. This happens while corporations out to do harm, simply throw money at politicians to obtain “favorable” treatment. We falsely believe that once there is a law the innocent will have protection but that is very often not the case.

    Great discussion Andrew and I appreciate you challenging us to think and talk about these important issues.

    Karen

    Karen Swims last blog post..Embrace Your Obstacles

  7. drew Says:
    July 14th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    Lauren/Karen,

    Thank you both for your kind words and comments.

    In relation to Lauren’s point, I too, feel that at times, ‘the market’ is given a little too much reverence.

    Don’t get me wrong, I believe fully in a free market economy whereby individuals are free to conduct business in an innovative manner without undue interference from government.

    But I do believe that the market has its flaws, and sensible government intervention is sometimes required to ensure fairness and equity in the system.

    Let me stress, I am only referring to sensible government intervention. As per Karen’s point, in cases where legislation is either poorly drafted or unnecessarily overbearing, it can be counter productive in terms of encouraging ethical behavior or producing fair social outcomes.

    Cheers

    Andrew

  8. Brad Shorr Says:
    July 18th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Hi Andrew, Karen, Lauren. This is turning into quite an interesting conversation. Unfortunately, any organization comprised of human tends toward corruption, whether the organization is corporate or political in nature. The bigger the organization, the more dangerous the corruption. I think Lauren is right insofar that big business, if unchecked, will engage in all kinds of abuses, which is exactly what happened in the early 20th century and led to the formation of unions and fair trade laws, etc. But to assume that government is by nature a moral check on an immoral free market is I think a dangerous assumption. The mortgage meltdown is a case in point. Some have argued that it was Congress that caused the problem in the first place by pressuring lending institutions to make loans to disadvantaged people whether they were credit worthy or not. I don’t think that’s the whole truth, but it was definitely a contributing factor. Small business and small government is preferable to concentrated power of either variety, but especially concentrated governmental power, because its power is absolutely coercive.

    Brad Shorrs last blog post..12 Things Writing and Golf Have in Common

  9. Andrew Says:
    July 21st, 2008 at 6:37 am

    Indeed this is turning into an interesting discussion – thank you Brad, Lauren and Karen for your contributions to it.

    I do take Brad’s point about excessive concentration of power in the hands of either individual corporations or governments.

    Exon Mobil and their apparent disregard for any form of environmental or social responsibility is a good example of the consequences of excessive power in the hands of a corporation.

    For the consequences of excessive government power, we only have to look at examples such as China or Russia, or worse, Zimbabwe, Myanmar or North Korea just to name a few.

    Brad’s example above does provide a demonstration of the dangers of government interference even in a free, stable democracy like America.

    I still do believe that governments should take a proactive stance in encouraging ethical conduct, and with respect to Lauren’s point, I do believe that effective laws as well as an effective system of law enforcement and justice is necessary in order to limit unacceptable corporate behavior.

    With regards to Brad’s point about small business and small government, I do agree that excessive concentration of power is fraught with potential problems. However, at the other end of the spectrum, highly fragmented industries produce ethical problems of their own, particularly in cases of industries which are characterized by low transaction volumes and high margins per transaction.

    I am not familar with the situation in America, but in Australia, such industries such as construction, real estate sales or used car sales appear to be amongst the industries most fraught with ethical abuses.

    True, over concentration of power in the hands of few industries players leads to potential ethical abuses, but so too does can an undue extent of industry fragmentation.

  10. Real Estate Investor Says:
    September 1st, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    I enjoyed your article, thank you.

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv Enabled
Icons by N.Design Studio. Designed By Ben Swift. Powered by WordPress and Free WordPress Themes
Entries RSS