CSR: Companies Shirk Responsibilities

Audrey Ng | audrey_a@nus.edu.sg

Mar. 11, 2008

Story Highlights:

• Many organizations adopting CSR as part of their business strategy
• Question of whether companies are practicing ethical CSR
• Some companies claim to practice CSR but their activities harm society or the environment
• Various international bodies and student groups involved in promoting CSR

CSR is the new buzzword in the corporate world. The question is, are companies’ CSR practices ethical?

For instance, McDonald’s has programs to donate to children’s charities; the Shell Foundation supports start-up businesses in Africa, while Adidas’ community involvement initiatives include educational programmes and fundraising.

However, McDonalds’ has been accused of misleading advertisements and animal abuse, Shell and Greenpeace clashed over the dumping of oil in the North Sea, while Adidas was attacked for its sweatshops in Indonesia.

While these organizations have programs to contribute to the betterment of society, their activities also add to its detriment.

Corporate Social Responsibility, more commonly known as CSR, means organizations acknowledging that their activities have an impact on society and take responsibility for their actions.

CSR is becoming an increasingly important aspect of business.

Many companies are incorporating CSR into their business strategy as it benefits companies economically and improves its sustainability over the long term.

Second-year Arts student, Lim Li Shan, thinks that adopting CSR would “help in positive branding for the company” and that companies should not forgo long term benefits, which will bring about cost savings, for short term tangible rewards.

This raises the question of whether companies are sincere about behaving responsibly or just practicing CSR for monetary gain, and how they go about making their profits.

In a speaker session held during the CSR Awareness Week, Dr. Natasha Hamilton-Hart from the Southeast Asian Studies Programme said: “many companies claim to be virtuous but are actually responsible for damage.”

She added that it would be good to check on companies’ claims of being environmentally friendly to see if they act on what they claim to.

Similarly, Nichole Detering, co-president of the NUS Corporate Ethics Focus Group (CEFG) said, “many companies are only using CSR as a marketing tool and are implementing very minor changes.”

For instance, she said that although Ford Motor Company claims to be green-focused, their cars have the lowest fuel economy standards in the world.

In addition, even though British Petroleum has changed their image to “Beyond Petroleum”, they continue to add to global warming as their whole business involves fossil fuels.

Detering said that for companies to be ethical, a top-down approach where management sets a precedent for employees to follow, would be best.

Similarly, Hart said that there is a need for self-regulation on the part of companies, as CSR is a set of voluntary codes.

There are student groups on campus such as the CSR Student Movement and CEFG that aim to raise awareness and promote ethics in business, as well as international bodies that seek to uphold ethical principles.

The UN Global Compact is a voluntary initiative for businesses to follow ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption. It is the “world’s largest global corporate citizenship initiative.”

Detering thinks that “international cooperation and improving existing loopholes in the World Trade Organization” would create significant improvement in getting standardized environmental practices and labour conditions.

(Image from: https://globalcompact.pbwiki.com/f/UNGC_Lgotype_RGB_very_small.gif)

The daily affair of staying attuned

By Stacey Wong HianYan | why2616@singnet.com.sg

Murmurings could be heard as the lecturer raised the thorny question in the marketing seminar: “Should undergraduates be interested in campus and local news?” I was mildly disturbed when a showing of hands revealed that most students are only remotely interested in daily happenings around the world.

Either that, or they do not read the newspaper at all. The girl sitting next to me even commented that she would consider reading the newspaper everyday a chore.

Her comment highlights a perennial concern that Singapore youths are generally apathetic and not attuned to world affairs.

Are we apathetic because we fail to see the connection between these current affairs and our lives? That being said, maybe we are just too self-centered to care about things that do not concern us.

When half a year ago, the NUS Students’ Union managed to convince the school Administration Board to amend the revised S/U policy option deemed to give the latest cohort an added advantage. Responses to the poll and discussion forum were overwhelming. Appeals, emotions and accusations were thrown voraciously. But, is the student population really vocal because they are interested in the issue, or is it because the outcome will have a direct impact on their grades that they have become more than mildly interested?

I do hope that the former explanation holds true but observation and a tingling suspicion suggest otherwise. To test this hypothesis would be relatively simple. We could perhaps start a forum encouraging students to recommend ways to make our school infrastructure user-friendlier to the disabled. Will the responses be as encouraging or as enthusiastic? It is hard to admit that the upshot is that we are simply too busy with our lives to take an interest in affairs that are of little concern to us.

When that happens, each of us risks becoming a self-contained entity. This becomes a fundamental problem as there will come a time when big opportunities are presented to us, but we will be in no position to take advantage of them because we have become inward-looking as a result of our impassiveness.

In an era of global competitiveness, knowledge acquisition and time management skills are vital assets. But, it is hardly justifiable to equate completing our loads of readings before tutorials with the above skills. The knowledge route does not necessarily suggest rote learning. It entails an interactive learning process. We learn by reading stories and sharing anecdotes, thinking and reflecting on each other’s experiences. Thus, the news medium is an excellent learning platform as it performs those very functions.

An engaging read will allow readers to imbibe the diversity of the human race. The more we read, the more interested we will become as human beings have an innate desire for discovery. This sense of curiosity will reinforce our capabilities immensely as we look to ratchet up our own personal competitiveness.

An understanding that breeds from keen awareness will allow us to competently implant our ideas and tap onto the opportunities present in the system. A person who can successful exploit the global opportunities present at these interstices will also be one who can successfully manage and run the system. Undoubtedly, this sense of competence will up the notches on one’s competitiveness scale.

The daily affair of staying in touch with the world should not be considered a task; it is a social obligation required of every passionate undergraduate because university life should and must not be reduced to the mindless pursuit of grades alone. That entrenched mentality should be ridded if Singapore is to become a true knowledge-based economy.

Amputation

By Tan Tze How Kelvin | tzehow@nus.edu.sg

I squeezed through the Chinese New Year crowd in busy Chinatown.

It was probably as crowded as it was 50 years ago. But now, we hear a myriad of languages – English, Italian, French, Japanese, Korean and Mandarin of different accents and slang.

“Same same, but different,” I quote the famous t-shirt from Chactuchak.

Somewhere outside the Chinese Heritage Museum, my childhood fear caught my attention: the traditional puppet show, which was a compulsory item during the seventh month ghost festival.

The spooky glossy red-cheek face puppetry was accompanied by loud cymbals and people singing in an incomprehensible language.

Twenty years later, I stood here and watch the puppet show with some fascination – it appears to be exotic.

Yet, as a Hokkien descendent, it is a peculiar thing to say.

As I elbowed my way to the front row for a good view, I could not help feel a sense of amputation from this thing called “roots.”

As we pride ourselves with multiculturalism and diversity, we homogenize our languages. We encourage Mandarin and cut dialects away.

What about history? How do we interpret our past then?

We lose not only the ability, i.e. language, but also a set a whole generation of culture, arts and memory. Perhaps that explains our cultural inferiority.

Deep down within, I know Hokkien is a part of me – the language that I attempt to speak, with valiant effort. It always break out to laughter, if not, frustration.

And as the show ended, I walked away, knowing that I am handicapped. And so will my future generations.

The writer hopes to make a documentary about dialects in Singapore one day.

Afterthoughts: The Interdisciplinary Forum for climate change

By Thet Lin Thu

I went to this climate change panel at school the other day. It was hosted by the student union’s environmental club NUS SAVE (students against violation of Earth).

It mainly focused on professors of different disciplines where they talked about the relation of their particular subject to that of climate change. The main emphasis given by Associate Provost Alan Chan (in the introductory speech) was that we need all professions from different disciplines, not just the sciences but also from the social sciences and humanities, to tackle climate change for climate change is not a scientific problem, but a human problem. I couldn’t agree more on that, it really is a human problem. More specifically, it is a problem of human stupidity and greed.

A guest speaker was there too, the ambassador of Denmark, Vibeke Rovsing Lauritzen. Denmark is quite an exemplary example of reducing carbon emissions and following the Kyoto protocol. From the statistics she showed, Denmark not only reduced its carbon emissions but also increased its economic GDP and other indexes (will state them in full if I get the time later). She was talking about leading institutions should use their formidable education resources to tackle problems of sustainable energy and mentioned the next UN Climate Change Panel at Copenhagen University in 2009.

Then came an introduction by Jeffery Philip Obbard, the deputy head from the department of of environmental science. The topic of the talk was living in the Anthropocene. It was kinda an introductory course of climate change 101, on carbon cycles, water cycles, weather cycles etc and how human activity starting with the industrial revolution has disturbed the delicate natural processes of the planet. He also mentioned many a truthful words: “To me, CO2 is only half the equation”. Prof. Obbard also stressed that it is not only a concern for scientists but also for coporations, industries and economies alike on familiar points like the long term effects on the economy due to climate change in 100 years in the future is going to be drastic if we do not start switching to climate friendly models by now.

Thet next speaker Professor Scott Valentine from the Lee Kuan Yew school of public policy, talked about the root cause of global warming. His talk was very much similar to many of my ideas (and previous posts) on global warming. “Global warming is merely a symptom”, he said and I was nearly going to start applauding at the statement. It is the mass over-consumption of people in developed countries that is causing the problem. And he said that it is also amazing how little this is talked about. That climate change is not only an energy issue, not merely a emission issue, but symptoms and negative feedbacks of a much more fundamental root cause: scarcity. “The world is a closed system, finite.” Another quote which I really liked was “any solution to climate change might also lead to another problem”. Yet another one, “finding replacements for fossil fuel energy only allows excessive consumption to escalate across the board”. There was also mention on the IPAT equation (Impact on environment = Population + Affluence + Technology). Some of his ideas on the solution includes increasing the demographic transition stage in many third world countries. In other words, a long term goal is devised to promote them to first world status so that the population becomes sustainable. Another idea include a population protocol similar to the Kyoto protocol. Personally, I don’t have confidence in those solutions. How long would it take to raise Africa to first world status?

Daniel Goh, another really young professor from the department of sociology came with a recurring theme: that GDP doesn’t tell us everything, namely two things ecological sustainability and quality of life. Essentially, his talk was about the (un)Happpy Planet Index. He stressed on the apathy, lethargy and lack of real democracy of Singapore. I feel that he could be a very connecting public speak due to his youth and knowledge, sprinkling the exact local words such as “sian” for apathy, “kiasuism” for competitive materialism. The social capital for Singaporeans to turn climate friendly is also not there, he said as although you may be enthusiastic about global warming, your friends, neighbors aren’t and the social structure eventually doesn’t place CC at a top priority level. Eventually this passes on to the next generation since parents and the existing social structure doesn’t promote climate friendly ideas. Singaporeans need an average of 3.4 earths for them to be ecologically sustainable.

I think it is a very nice initiative by SAVE. College students are to be considered the elites in terms of intellectuality within society. For along history, it is evident that fundamental development and change was fostered by academic institutions, whether it be political, industrial or purely academic. In other words, education.

I feel that climate change, being such an important and critical issue of this age, needs incredible steps forward in maturity in our socio-econ-political systems. This maturity can only be nurtured by education.

Not just literacy, but higher education of much philosophical depth and comprehension of nature. I don’t necessarily mean it as a scientific comprehension, I meant it more as a sociological concept.

Only when an individual knows how to differentiate “self” and “society” and relate it to intersections of biographies and histories of one’s time (Mills lol) can he/she start to appreciate how important everything around him/her is and how insignificant he/she is. When realization of insignificance sets in, humbleness, humility and most important of all, comprehension, is gained. Such development takes time, effort and mindfulness of self to achieve.

Such ideas need time to formulate and ultimately, I think that the environment matters the most for it is where the basic blocks to play with are available. For the best combination and permutations of basic blocks, higher education is the most appropriate environment that facilitates higher thinking.

Therefore, we need a unified front from all sectors, education, industry, technology and society. For short term goals, economic protocols such as industry and technology will probably be the best solutions. But we need to remember that global warming is a symptom of human immaturity. We have to set long term goals from now by nuturing education and public understanding so that the future generation will gain the social capital to cap human stupidity once and for all.

Voideck

Directed by fourth-year communication and new media major Shaun Lu, starring several students from NUS. A short film made for their theater studies project. Enjoy fellas!

PM Lee at NUS: Where’s the substance?

By Choo Zheng Xi

Sept. 24, 2007

The Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum was a surreal experience. Throughout the forum, I had trouble believing that this event was being held the day after one of the most contentious Parliamentary sittings I had ever followed was concluded.

I had trouble believing that I was being addressed by the Prime Minister of a government that was in the process of trying to push through one of the most revolutionary makeovers of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) scheme in history. Generally, I was troubled.

PM largely steered clear of contentious local issues, choosing instead to focus a large part of his speech on standard fare about our relations with our neighbours, with a more general sketch of local issues.

What PM did not say was more revealing than what he focused on. It was clear that he was trying to steer clear of touching on anything to do with CPF, preferring instead to dwell in the safe harbour of the importance of our international friendships and the benefits of cosmopolitanism.

Fair enough, considering I did not expect him to raise anything ground breaking. A reporter I was sitting next to pointed out to me that one often goes to these dialogues to see what interesting questions are asked in question and answer. If you’re there for PM’s speech you’re better off reading the Straits Times the next day.

More disturbing for me was the crowd: as even PM himself acknowledged; only slightly more than half the crowd was local. A reflection on how much local students care about issues that affect them?

Even more odd, almost none of the eleven people who rose to ask questions bothered to touch on the most important issue of our day: CPF changes. Many asked general questions about relations with our neighbours, to which he gave equally general responses. Several asked general questions about integrating foreign talent, to which he gave equally general answers: “you bring to the Singaporean mix something different!”

Frustrated with the shadow play, I decided to lob him one:

“Mr Prime Minister, how serious is your government about soliciting feedback and consultation? Your annuities scheme was announced, made compulsory, details were given, before a committee was set up to take soundings from the ground. Doesn’t this ex post facto consultation put people off the idea of engaging in the issues of the day? Why give feedback when the decision’s been made?”

His answer, as you might have read in the press, was that the government is supposed to lead, make tough choices, and would be merely a feedback box otherwise.

Fair enough, if it did not clash so dissonantly with his next answer to a question by NUS Law student Li Fang Yi.

Fang Yi asked: “Mr Prime Minister, what do you think about the failure to repeal 377 and it’s effect on our international image?”

His answer, paraphrased, was a familiar refrain: it’s an issue that is provocative, raises a lot of emotions on both sides, so the government is adopting a wait and see attitude.

It was perhaps this selective leadership that put off many of the friends I attended this dialogue with. Several commented on how good he was at answering questions, and not in a flattering manner.

Someone who had previously attended a dialogue with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew noted dryly: “at least his father would have given straight answers.”

Choo Zheng Xi is a second-year Law undergraduate at the National University of Singapore. He is also the owner and co-editor of The Online Citizen. This article was first published for TOC on Sept. 22, 2007 and reproduced here with the author’s kind permission.The opinions of the article may in no way reflect the views of The Ridge

Don’t agree with him? Send your letters now to Your Shout! – tzehow@nus.edu.sg