Post by account_disabled on Mar 8, 2024 23:03:52 GMT -6
Just read a couple of short articles that illustrate many of the problems faced by those who want to promote responsible practices in companies. One, from a business proponent at the Bottom of the Pyramid, goes out of his way to try to convince us that this is not CSR, that it is a separate discipline. The other enters into a discussion about whether social enterprises can or should aspire to profit. Both cases illustrate why many companies are right to be skeptical about CSR. If proponents argue among themselves, companies may become confused. In the first case, titled Base of the Pyramid (BoP), Corporate Social Responsibility? The author questions whether inclusive businesses and BoP are part of CSR. It argues that “the base of the pyramid must be underpinned by the “business intimacy” that exists when a company and its community partners consider each other essential to their collective identity, health and well-being and implies a deep interdependence in which the company and the community develop and nurture a shared commitment to the long-term growth and development of each of them.” It also expresses that “the idea that relating the conceptualization of the base of the pyramid (or even inclusive businesses) with CSR will produce a limitation in the development of people in conditions of poverty,” casting doubt on whether inclusive businesses They are part of CSR. Let's analyze both assertions. In the first assertion, the author argues for the intimacy of inclusive businesses and a deep interdependence between the two.
If that were the case, multiple opportunities to Phone Number List incorporate neglected sectors into the circle of exchange, into economic activity, would be missed. It will be difficult for the company to afford intimacy with all its relations and create dependence on companies or businesses, by definition weaker, that depend on it, not the other way around. Why restrict the scope of operation so much? Why demand so much additional effort from the company? In the second assertion, the author alleges that relating inclusive businesses to CSR limits the development of people in conditions of poverty. Could it be that your very exclusive definition of inclusive businesses limits inclusion? It seems that CSR is to blame for the fact that poverty is not resolved. It is true that it is not the company's responsibility to solve the problems of poverty, but it is also true that it is in the best interest of the company to operate in a market where everyone can participate, it is in its best interest to do what is within its reach, within the framework of its businesses, to improve the living conditions of those less favored segments and that can contribute to the development of the same company. If the goal of inclusive businesses were to solve poverty, they can hardly be called businesses and will hardly be financially sustainable in the long term.
If the inclusive business part of the company has those poverty reduction goals, then the author is right, it is not part of the company's responsible practices, it is part of his, very possibly ephemeral, philanthropy. It would be a huge missed opportunity if we limited ourselves to inclusive businesses that meet these characteristics. All this seems to be aimed at creating a new discipline of “inclusive business”, or BoP, separate from CSR. With the balkanization of the issue, for some to win, we all lose. It is preferable to support each other, build a better society without semantic divisions. Inclusive businesses and BoP businesses are one of the many responsible practices framed within CSR. (I invite the author of that article to publish his response on my blog) The second article is a review of Muhammad Yunus's latest book, Building Social Business: The new kind of capitalitsm that serves humanity's most pressing needs” by Rodney Schwartz, published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review of Fall 2010. The author of the article criticizes Yunus for the narrowness of his definition of what constitutes a social enterprise. Yunus defines it as a non-profit company, which aims to produce products and services for social purposes. His argument is that Yunus's opposition to profit would greatly limit the type of enterprises that would qualify as social and therefore their ability to capture markets and donor support.
If that were the case, multiple opportunities to Phone Number List incorporate neglected sectors into the circle of exchange, into economic activity, would be missed. It will be difficult for the company to afford intimacy with all its relations and create dependence on companies or businesses, by definition weaker, that depend on it, not the other way around. Why restrict the scope of operation so much? Why demand so much additional effort from the company? In the second assertion, the author alleges that relating inclusive businesses to CSR limits the development of people in conditions of poverty. Could it be that your very exclusive definition of inclusive businesses limits inclusion? It seems that CSR is to blame for the fact that poverty is not resolved. It is true that it is not the company's responsibility to solve the problems of poverty, but it is also true that it is in the best interest of the company to operate in a market where everyone can participate, it is in its best interest to do what is within its reach, within the framework of its businesses, to improve the living conditions of those less favored segments and that can contribute to the development of the same company. If the goal of inclusive businesses were to solve poverty, they can hardly be called businesses and will hardly be financially sustainable in the long term.
If the inclusive business part of the company has those poverty reduction goals, then the author is right, it is not part of the company's responsible practices, it is part of his, very possibly ephemeral, philanthropy. It would be a huge missed opportunity if we limited ourselves to inclusive businesses that meet these characteristics. All this seems to be aimed at creating a new discipline of “inclusive business”, or BoP, separate from CSR. With the balkanization of the issue, for some to win, we all lose. It is preferable to support each other, build a better society without semantic divisions. Inclusive businesses and BoP businesses are one of the many responsible practices framed within CSR. (I invite the author of that article to publish his response on my blog) The second article is a review of Muhammad Yunus's latest book, Building Social Business: The new kind of capitalitsm that serves humanity's most pressing needs” by Rodney Schwartz, published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review of Fall 2010. The author of the article criticizes Yunus for the narrowness of his definition of what constitutes a social enterprise. Yunus defines it as a non-profit company, which aims to produce products and services for social purposes. His argument is that Yunus's opposition to profit would greatly limit the type of enterprises that would qualify as social and therefore their ability to capture markets and donor support.