Beware of Neo-Cons!

Okay. I have serious problems with David Henderson’s article, “The Case against ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’”. It almost seems to be a humorous article, if one appreciates sarcasm. I’m so stunned by his argument.
1. He says: The “notion of [corporate social responsibility (CSR)] is widely taken as well established but is in fact highly dubious”. I say: Uhh, what?? He describes CSR as a “threefold division into ‘economic’, ‘environmental’, and ‘social’ aspects” coupled with a “triple bottom line”. This means that corporations must concern themselves with the economic, environmental, and social implications that their business decisions will likely have. How is this dubious? Is this not the principal of basic business ethics? Is he implying that business ethics don’t/shouldn’t exist? He says this will impact profit by increasing costs, which he practically equates with the end of the world. God forbid that corporations treat workers like human beings! God forbid that corporations not dump chemicals into our drinking water! I mean, come on. Those costs are worth the money. I doubt that anyone with a soul would object to not dumping industrial waste into the natural commons or paying workers peanuts.
2. Literally, he says that “eco-efficiency” and “social justice” are “questionable objectives” that will “make everyone worse off”. Again: uhh, WHAT?? Is this sarcasm? How are these things questionable? Has he not read the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Even if you keep your head buried under the ground and totally don’t care nor believe in global climate change you have to admit that “social justice” is at least necessary. Perhaps I wouldn’t be so steamed about this if he had actually provided an adequate defense of his opinion. However, his reasoning, once again, falls entirely short. He explains that focusing on “eco-efficiency” “social justice” and “society’s expectations” will lead to “higher costs and lower profits”; thus “this effect of such enforced conformity is to limit competition and hence to worsen performance across the economy as a whole.” Wow. I’m so heartbroken that it’s a possibility that shareholders of enormous multinational enterprises (MNE) won’t be making enough money to wallpaper their mansions, only hand over fist.
PLEASE, David Henderson, don’t ever put yourself in a position where you are making decisions.

"Universal Interdependence of Nations"

In terms of empowered movements, one cannot touch on the subject without thinking of our new, global economy. A dream for some, it remains a nightmare for others.

150 years ago Karl Marx predicted that globalization would result in "...a constantely expanding market...[that] must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere." So, "in place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations." In their article, "The Hidden Promise: Liberty Renewed", John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge argue the process of globalization is "delivering the liberal dream" which will, eventually, lead to greater global prosperity.

Now, when I hear the argument that Micklethwait and Wooldridge present I think two words: trickle down. A theory as unreliable and unpredictable as weather: it's beautiful in Los Angeles, but it's probably not too comfortable in Siberia.

Though Micklethwait and Wooldridge do acknowledge that globalization "leaves some people behind" they are truly understating the problem. Our globalized economy gives way to cyclical poverty that impoverished areas of the world are unable to escape from. Multinational corporations, as anyone can see from the slightly biased yet still factual documentary, The Corporation, take advantage of laws in developing countries and, therefore, the impoverished people living there. One example from this film is the story of one clothing factory that pays such meager wages as $.08 per garment made (despite its retail price). At that rate, how is anyone supposed to buy their way out of being undereducated and underfed? Even the Salvation Army is cashing in.

Almost 300 million children around the world never make it to secondary school, 1/3 of those never make it to school at all. Even those that find a way to attend school in impoverished areas can't possibly be working at their potential, considering a good portion of them only eat one meal per day.

Fortunately, this predicament can be easily fixed; this can be a win/win situation! If corporations want cheap labor, they can still have it. Even if they doubled the wages they pay to factory workers in developing countries it would be "cheap" considering the labor options in developed nations. So, why not double wages? Why not sponsor the building of a school? Why not give workers a mid-day meal and basic health care? Social responsibility must be part of globalization, or else it will fail.

It is imperative that, should we want to move forth as a global community, we refuse to "leave some people behind". That option is unacceptable. We have the resources, we have the power. So, click here to help. If you can read this, you probably can make a difference.