News
BackOn 22 October 2013, a conference on “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) was held in the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). The one day meeting was attended by about twenty representatives from business, the European Commission, academic experts and EESC members, who presented their practical and theoretical approaches on CSR. However, from the point of view of employees it is more than disappointing that only one trade unionist representative had been invited onto the panel. The lack of balance in respect of the composition of expert participating was also a reflection of the weaknesses of the CSR concept in general.
About values and obligations
“Tchibo”, “Danone”, “Bpifrance Investissement”, “Schneider Electric”: the list of corporations represented on the panel of the conference is long. Also taking part were two representatives of BUSINESSEUROPE and EUROCHAMBRES. BUSINESSEUROPE is the largest employer umbrella organisation in Europe, whilst EUROCHAMBRES is the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Only one participant represented the employees' interests. This imbalance could be deemed as forerunner of things to come, i.e. of later contradictions concerning the precise understanding of CSR.
Right at the start of the meeting, several parties made it clear that “Corporate Social Responsibility” was not a uniform concept but that its role was to provide a basic framework for the strategic management of companies - the central idea being taking account of the social, economic und eco-political effects of entrepreneurial activities. Issues, such as “sustainable production” and “reconciliation between work and family life” were frequently touched upon during the discussions.
In particular in times of the global economic and financial crisis, businesses had to hark back to core ethical values. From this should emerge a corporate philosophy whose central idea was increasing the productivity of individual employees by giving greater consideration to their needs. This was the unanimous opinion voiced by employer representatives at the conference.
However, the majority of business representatives at the conference rejected legal provisions to establish concrete obligations, thereby bringing home the contradictions of this diffuse concept of “Corporate Social Responsibility”. Businesses use CSR to a certain degree as an umbrella term for strategies on the increase in productivity, what in practice might have completely different manifestations. In particular the so-called “greenwashing” poses a significant danger to consumers. It means that a company is praised in public for being particularly environmentally friendly, sustainable and socially fair, whilst the actual production conditions reveal another picture. In this context, CSR is used as a pure PR strategy without substance.
Fair taxation and CSR?
The attitude displayed by business representatives at the EESC conference also revealed something else: employees shall not necessarily be incorporated in respect of the definition of specific CSR contents. Its actual emphasis is on a new management strategy, which allows businesses to set non-binding guidelines for themselves, for example to change their production methods to become more environmentally friendly.
Surprisingly, questions concerning fair taxation were completely ignored in the discussions. However, especially this issue should have a bearing on the central idea of CSR in respect of corporations’ social responsibility. Every year, European states lose billions of euros due to systematic tax avoidance schemes adopted by multinational concerns. These skilfully use loopholes in national tax systems in their aggressive tax planning schemes – also see the AK EUROPA newsletter article on fair taxation.
Consequently, a corporation, which claims or attempts to realise its social responsibility, should reject these practises and pay its fair share in taxes.
Employees´ perspectives?
Marco Cilento, adviser of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), was the only representative of employees on the panel who concisely explained the problematic central issue of CSR. Due to its inconsistent and wide-ranging definition adopted by individual corporations, this concept is lacking a substantial core, which strengthens the rights of employees. Apart from that, employees are in general not integrated in the development of specific contents of a company’s CSR strategy. The issue of fair wages does normally not necessarily form a part of CSR.
Apart from that, the rejection by employers concerning certain legal obligations is a strong sign for this concept’s lack of bite. Hence, the question what exactly CSR stands for cannot be truthfully answered. Recent history has shown that a more detailed analysis quite often reveals nothing more than empty words. European retailers, for example whose garments are produced under inhumane conditions in Bangladesh, have not yet paid neither any compensation to the victims who worked in the collapsed factories nor to their relatives – also see the AK EUROPA newsletter article on textile workers in Bangladesh. At the same time some large retail chains take every opportunity to announce that they intend to ensure social and environmentally friendly production conditions.
Further information:
“Corporate Social Responsibility” Conference in EESC
“Tchibo”, “Danone”, “Bpifrance Investissement”, “Schneider Electric”: the list of corporations represented on the panel of the conference is long. Also taking part were two representatives of BUSINESSEUROPE and EUROCHAMBRES. BUSINESSEUROPE is the largest employer umbrella organisation in Europe, whilst EUROCHAMBRES is the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Only one participant represented the employees' interests. This imbalance could be deemed as forerunner of things to come, i.e. of later contradictions concerning the precise understanding of CSR.
Right at the start of the meeting, several parties made it clear that “Corporate Social Responsibility” was not a uniform concept but that its role was to provide a basic framework for the strategic management of companies - the central idea being taking account of the social, economic und eco-political effects of entrepreneurial activities. Issues, such as “sustainable production” and “reconciliation between work and family life” were frequently touched upon during the discussions.
In particular in times of the global economic and financial crisis, businesses had to hark back to core ethical values. From this should emerge a corporate philosophy whose central idea was increasing the productivity of individual employees by giving greater consideration to their needs. This was the unanimous opinion voiced by employer representatives at the conference.
However, the majority of business representatives at the conference rejected legal provisions to establish concrete obligations, thereby bringing home the contradictions of this diffuse concept of “Corporate Social Responsibility”. Businesses use CSR to a certain degree as an umbrella term for strategies on the increase in productivity, what in practice might have completely different manifestations. In particular the so-called “greenwashing” poses a significant danger to consumers. It means that a company is praised in public for being particularly environmentally friendly, sustainable and socially fair, whilst the actual production conditions reveal another picture. In this context, CSR is used as a pure PR strategy without substance.
Fair taxation and CSR?
The attitude displayed by business representatives at the EESC conference also revealed something else: employees shall not necessarily be incorporated in respect of the definition of specific CSR contents. Its actual emphasis is on a new management strategy, which allows businesses to set non-binding guidelines for themselves, for example to change their production methods to become more environmentally friendly.
Surprisingly, questions concerning fair taxation were completely ignored in the discussions. However, especially this issue should have a bearing on the central idea of CSR in respect of corporations’ social responsibility. Every year, European states lose billions of euros due to systematic tax avoidance schemes adopted by multinational concerns. These skilfully use loopholes in national tax systems in their aggressive tax planning schemes – also see the AK EUROPA newsletter article on fair taxation.
Consequently, a corporation, which claims or attempts to realise its social responsibility, should reject these practises and pay its fair share in taxes.
Employees´ perspectives?
Marco Cilento, adviser of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), was the only representative of employees on the panel who concisely explained the problematic central issue of CSR. Due to its inconsistent and wide-ranging definition adopted by individual corporations, this concept is lacking a substantial core, which strengthens the rights of employees. Apart from that, employees are in general not integrated in the development of specific contents of a company’s CSR strategy. The issue of fair wages does normally not necessarily form a part of CSR.
Apart from that, the rejection by employers concerning certain legal obligations is a strong sign for this concept’s lack of bite. Hence, the question what exactly CSR stands for cannot be truthfully answered. Recent history has shown that a more detailed analysis quite often reveals nothing more than empty words. European retailers, for example whose garments are produced under inhumane conditions in Bangladesh, have not yet paid neither any compensation to the victims who worked in the collapsed factories nor to their relatives – also see the AK EUROPA newsletter article on textile workers in Bangladesh. At the same time some large retail chains take every opportunity to announce that they intend to ensure social and environmentally friendly production conditions.
Further information:
“Corporate Social Responsibility” Conference in EESC