In recent years, the anti corporate movement, including those who are against globalization has gained a little steam. Many people in the movement now known to promote Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), the idea that companies should be responsible for all of society and the environment, and shareholders. It's a shame they have momentum. Yes, modern businesses, we would all be poorer, and in particular, few of us can expect to retire comfortably. More than anything, there are modern businesses to provide pensions. Sure, companies used to be in the hands of a few people very rich. But with the spread of pension funds and mutual funds, people are now most companies work.While it is true that the man of average working time is much, much less power than the average billionaire, there are many, many times more people working. This means that companies and public pension plans can invest large sums of money in stocks, and the working class are the largest shareholders of many companies. From a communications perspective, I am interested in knowing why CSR is the coverage of the media so good and so much attention. I am also interested in knowing what we as facilitators can learn from them.
The anti corporate movement has a simple message, "Corporations have power and too much money, working people don't have enough," or a variation on the same subject. On the other hand, my defense of the companies against anything but simple, although I'm pretty good at capturing ideas in words. Do your eyes glaze over when you read the description of me? The anti movement also have the luxury of doing good (the working poor) against big business bad argument. This is a moral argument that an herb adds a press release. On the other hand, is the pro side largely rational discourse and the ideas of economists.
The protesters bring passion to anti corporate message. In reality it is a battle between good and evil, right? Again, the defenders of modern business and globalization have to rely on mundane economic science. Corporate responsibility on the label social is also helping the anti-corporate. Not only the name as a unifying point for lawyers, but also implies that CSR is a good thing. In fact, while the social and accountability?
Now, despite its high profile in the media and the ubiquitous presence, proponents of CSR have a problem. They may be able to draw journalists and editors to win, but have little influence decision makers with real people, pension funds and investment funds. And policy makers are unlikely to be seduced. Understand the role of business and they know where their responsibilities. Despite the wide public sympathy for CSR is probably not much will have an effect due to report to shareholders, not society as a whole.
So perhaps the last lesson we will take the anti corporate movement today is that communication can sometimes be great so far by itself.
