I just read a couple of short articles that illustrate many of the problems facing those who want to promote responsible business practices. One, a proponent of business at the Base of the Pyramid, is working on trying to convince us that this is not CSR, which is a separate discipline. The other goes into a discussion about whether social enterprises can or should aspire to gain. Both cases illustrate because many companies have reason to be skeptical about CSR. If proponents argue among themselves, the companies can be confused.
In the first case, called Base of the Pyramid (BoP) Corporate Social Responsibility? He challenges that inclusive business in the BoP are part of CSR. Argues that " the base of the pyramid must be built on" private business "that exists when a company and its community partners are considered essential to each other for their identity and collective health and wellness and involves a deep interdependence in the company and the community develop and nurture a shared commitment to growth and long-term development of each of them. " also states that" the idea that relate the conceptualization of the base of the pyramid (Or even inclusive business) to CSR will result in a limitation on the development of people in poverty ", casting doubt that inclusive business are part of CSR. Let
both assertions. In the first statement the author argues for the privacy of inclusive business and a deep interdependence between them. If that were the case, would no longer take advantage of multiple opportunities to incorporate neglected sectors in the circle of trade, economic activity. The company can hardly afford intimacy with all related and established businesses or business unit, by definition, weaker that depend on it, not vice versa. Why restrict both the scope of operation? Why require much additional effort for the company?
The second assertion, the author argues that inclusive business relating to CSR, limits the development of people in poverty. Do not be so exclusive that their definition of inclusive business is the limited inclusion? It seems that CSR is guilty of failure to resolve poverty. It is true that the company is the responsibility of solving the problems of poverty, but it is also true that the company would want to operate in a market where everyone can participate, you should do everything in their power, within the framework of its business, to improve the lives of those less privileged segments and that can contribute to the development of the same company. If the goal of inclusive business was to solve poverty, can hardly be called hard business and be financially sustainable in the long term. If the business inclusive of the company have these poverty reduction targets, then the author is right, is not part of their practices responsible for the company, is part of his philanthropy, most likely short-lived. It would be a huge missed opportunity if we limit ourselves to inclusive businesses that meet these characteristics. This
t seems be aimed at creating a new discipline of "inclusive business", or BoP, CSR separate. With the balkanization of the subject, so that some win, we all lose. It is preferable to support each other, build a better society without divisions semantics. Inclusive business and BoP businesses are one of many responsible practices within a framework of CSR. (I invite the author of that article to post your response on my blog)
The second article is a review of the latest book by Muhammad Yunus, 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 Fall 2010. The article's author criticizes lu Yunus for his narrow definition of what constitutes a social enterprise. Yunus is defined as a nonprofit company that aims to produce products and services for social purposes. His argument is that the opposition of Yunus-profit greatly limit the types of companies that qualify as social and therefore its ability to capture markets and donor support.
In a dispassionate analysis, the discussion seems irrelevant semantics. How to rate the company seems to be irrelevant, what matters is the contribution it makes to economic development. But it is more likely to survive if it makes profits to support its continuation. This is not your goal is only the achievement of benefits, much less market exploitation of the poor and uninformed. This can be progressively moving away from the social objective. But to pretend that only has social objectives, can be made dependent on donations from third parties, and limit their innovation and empowerment. If the undertaking has benefits always have the option of using them to donate or subsidize some products or services to segments with less ability to pay. If you do not get them, their livelihood is constantly at risk.
Yunus himself, referring the founder of the largest microfinance institution in India that made an issue of shares in the capital market, called it "a young competent has made the wrong decision to use microfinance to make money." The discussion should not be if you win money, it should be if he won responsibly provide its services with efficient intermediation margins, looking for sources of cheaper funds, educating customers about the proper use of credit, providing the products they need, contributing to its development, etc.
One company, by definition, must have as its first objective financial sustainability, otherwise you can not do much (and we're not talking philanthropy fund.) What should be avoided is that the lens is the only and ignore or crush other objectives of contributing to economic and social development.
Continuing with this theme, the next item will be With friends like that, who needs enemies?
0 comments:
Post a Comment