The Anthropology of Corporate Social Responsibility

Catherine Dolan, Dinah Rajak, Catherine Dolan, Dinah Rajak

• Publisher: Berghahn Books
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781785330728
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sciences sociales
• Subtopic: Anthropologie

The Anthropology of Corporate Social Responsibility explores the meanings, practices, and impact of corporate social and environmental responsibility across a range of transnational corporations and geographical locations (Bangladesh, Cameroon, Chile, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, India, Peru, South Africa, the UK, and the USA). The contributors examine the expectations, frictions and contradictions the CSR movement is generating and addressing key issues such as the introduction of new forms of management, control, and discipline through ethical and environmental governance or the extent to which corporate responsibility challenges existing patterns of inequality rather than generating new geographies of inclusion and exclusion.

– Chapter 1 –

THEATRES OF VIRTUE

Collaboration, Consensus, and the Social Life of Corporate Social Responsibility

Dinah Rajak

Who better than Coca-Cola, a firm with a better distribution network in sub-Saharan Africa than any aid agency, to get materials out to needy populations? … Exhortation not regulation!

—David Cameron, British Prime Minister (then Conservative Party Leader), Annual Business in the Community Conference, 9 May 2006.

In the past decade, transnational corporations have become increasingly important players on the landscape of international development, under the banner of corporate social responsibility (CSR)—a movement promising to harness the global reach and resources of corpo-rations in the service of local development and social improvement. This movement projects corporations not only as self-disciplining moral actors, but as leaders in a new orthodoxy of business-led development which promises empowerment through “the market.” The primacy of the market as the panacea for poverty has been proclaimed by leaders of transnational corporations and multilateral development institutions alike, encapsulated in Kofi Annan’s statement at the launch of the Global Compact between business and civil society: “Let us choose to unite the power of markets with the authority of universal ideals. Let us choose to reconcile the creative forces of private entrepreneurship with the needs of the disadvantaged” (World Economic Forum, Davos 1999). The powerful populism of the “Make poverty history” campaign, which captured the imagination of celebrities and school children across the UK, has been respun to reflect the prominence of business in this mission with the catchy, yet perhaps unintentionally ambivalent message: “Make poverty business” (Wilson and Wilson 2006: 1). Meanwhile the United Nations Development Programme reminds readers of the Financial Times that “the poor need business to invest in their future. Business needs the poor because they are the future” (14 September 2005). Drawing on idioms of emancipation through the market, CSR has thus demonstrated an apparent capacity to unite disparate actors (and former combatants), creating coalitions between unexpected partners eager to realise this union of global markets and universal ideals.

This exuberance in the public arena has been matched (and reinforced) within much of the academic literature, with scholars heralding CSR as nothing less than the dawn of a new era of development in which global corporations transcend the pitfalls of state-led development: “Never before has a partnership been created between the highest levels of the UN, business, NGOs and labour representatives.… The stakes are high … the potential gains are immense” (Zadek 2001: 102).

Frequently the subject of panegyric or polemic but less often critical analysis, the normative preoccupation with whether CSR is a force for good or a cynical corporate ploy obscures the discursive capacity of CSR to reshape development agendas according to corporate values and interests. However, in the past couple of years, anthropologists have begun to reveal the effects of these corporate social initiatives in diverse contexts around the world (see, e.g., Benson and Kirsch 2009; De Neve 2008; Shever 2010). They have done so primarily from the perspective of the intended targets, rather than the architects of these ethical regimes on which this article focuses.

One theme emerges most strongly from the literature on CSR, whether from insiders or analysts, advocates or critics: that CSR is a truly global phenomenon, exercised through supranational networks of ethical governance (see, e.g. Garsten and Jacobsson 2007; Shamir 2008). Norms and standards thus appear as components of a global moral regime. But this preoccupation with the global dimension of CSR—whether as an instrument of social improvement worldwide or a tool of global governmentality—has resulted in an analysis of CSR disembedded from its social practice. We are left asking, how is this new orthodoxy of compassionate corporate capitalism forged? And what actors and interests work (directly or indirectly) toward sustaining, reinforcing, and extending its power?

The purpose of this article is to shed light on these processes, and in particular the ritualized and performative dynamics of CSR, which I argue are crucial to establishing it as development orthodoxy. These rituals are elements in the construction of narratives that structure the processes of the CSR world. As Bloch (1992) argues, ritual can serve to constrain contestation while inviting participants to share in and thus validate a particular world view. Put another way, they compel consensus while mystifying the dynamics of power at work. Rituals of corporate morality thus play an important role in generating particular ways of seeing and understanding on the part of people involved in the CSR industry and, I argue, should be seen as a new and significant dimension of corporate power.

The article is based on fieldwork tracking the performance of CSR through the circuit of conventions, policy forums, and award ceremonies that constitute the elite “global” arena of corporate citizenship, or put another way the “social life” of CSR. For it is here that we begin to disentangle the agency of various actors—from captains of industry to representatives of the “grass roots,” from business schools to UN agencies—involved in the production of this powerful discourse; and we begin to see how the shift from agonistic to collaborative, from conflictual to consensual is achieved. Within these arenas corporate executives come together with representatives of global NGOs, the growing army of CSR consultants, and dozens of small firms or nonprofits (the boundary between which is often blurred). Participants extol the virtues of bi-, tri- or multisector partnerships, develop standards, and present case studies recounting their engagement with the local communities who represent the targets of their ethical behaviour. Such gatherings unfold as highly ritualistic theatres of virtue, in which awards for the best corporate citizen are presented and inspiring stories of social responsibility are told. Here, a moral register of compassionate capitalism summons the ghosts of Rowntree and Cadbury, and the paternalistic philanthropy of Victorian industrialists. Yet at the same time, commitment to the supposed amorality of market rationality is claimed through the language of “the business case for CSR,” “enlightened self-interest,” and not least “the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid.”

The ethnographic focus of this article is London—global financial capital, home to some of the world’s largest multinationals, and central hub of the booming CSR industry. As in cities worldwide, one is continuously met with testaments to corporate citizenship. The rhetoric of sustainable development is emblazoned on bus stops advertising BP (newly incarnated as “Beyond Petroleum”). Standard Bank promises to “bank the unbanked” across Africa. And even BAE Systems (the world’s second biggest defense contractor) advertises its social responsibility on the London underground beneath the slogan “making the world a safer place.”¹ Thus a senior economist and CSR advisor for the OECD’s CSR unit remarked: “I have always viewed London as being the CSR capital of the world.… [T]he London CSR community has done a great service to the world, getting governments, business, and NGOs to work together.”

The exhortation to “partnership” is of course nothing new in the development industry. Nor is the power of the partnership paradigm to assert equality and consensus where in fact inequality and difference reign, as anthropologists of development have shown. In the case of CSR, however, the concept of partnership has demonstrated even broader appeal, and greater discursive power, in its capacity to unite parties in an apparently shared enterprise, proclaiming a collaborative venture for a collective goal of sustainable development and elevating “the global market” as the fundamental mechanism through which this can be achieved. For as CSR recruits support from distant corners it asserts a global, national, and indeed local alliance between business and society, and thus a congruence of values between the logic of maximization and the moral imperatives of development.

Theatres of virtue

In October 2005, senior executives from a number of the world’s biggest corporations (including Shell and Coca-Cola) came together with numerous consultants in search of contracts, and with NGO representatives (those willing or able to pay the £695 conference fee) at the Regent’s Park Marriott Hotel in London for a convention hosted by Ethical Corporation on “The New Role of Business in Development.” “The real reason for being in business is to create wealth,” the poster headline announced, “so is it good business to join the fight against poverty?” As if in response, the conference was opened by the director of the Shell Foundation, Kurt Hoffman, who asserted the new orthodoxy of a business-led development agenda:

The challenge in 2005 is not to restate the problems but to apply business thinking and come up with solutions.… So Tony Blair’s Africa Commission—which has placed a welcome emphasis on the role of the private sector—needs to push the pro-poor enterprise agenda even further.

The underlying theme of Hoffman’s speech was the failure of development led by a parochial state sector burdened with a moral mission to uplift—the modern day legacy of, as he put it, “the white man’s burden.” The solution, according to Hoffman, is to be found in the world of big business, where technocratic efficiency comes together with competitive creativity, driven by the limitless power of the market. “Let us choose to unite the power of markets…,” he proclaimed, quoting Kofi Annan.

The next speaker on the conference bill, a representative from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, echoed this economistic formula: poverty eradication through access to expanding markets, and profit generation through the vast reserve of untapped customers and aspirant entrepreneurs in developing countries:

What’s the point in expanding markets? The market creates opportunities. When you’re cut out of the market, you’re cut out of the social system, you’re not empowered.… One unique contribution that business provides is enterprise—enterprising ways out of poverty, this isn’t about doing good, it’s about providing environments for enterprise.

According to this equation the market comes to stand for the social system as a whole. Questions concerning the inequitable distribution of wealth vanish, as poverty is recast within this depoliticised framework as due simply to a lack of market opportunities.

Implicit within this vision of empowerment is an ideal (entrepreneurial) actor who can respond to the moral exhortation “to help oneself” to a piece of the global market by embracing the opportunities provided by expanding business (Dolan, this volume). However, the promise of CSR goes far beyond the apparent benefits of foreign direct investment and market growth. As David Cameron’s statement quoted above exemplifies, corporations are now urged to engage wholeheartedly with the developmental needs and goals of the countries and communities in which they operate, helping to build stable affluent societies with the aim of establishing the conditions for further investment.

Speaker after speaker echoed the same refrain of doing good business to do good, attended by compelling promises of “collective responsibility” and “win-win solutions,” or as the representative from the OECD put it: “making profits and protecting our planet!” Positioned at the centre of the capitalist global market, corporations are seen to be perfectly placed not only to implement this agenda but to lead it. This was encapsulated by the director of the Partnering Initiative at the International Business Leaders Forum: “business knows how to operate in certain parts of the world better than development agencies.… [W]e should follow them into Africa.…”

This conference was just one in an annual cycle of events, from large-scale conferences such as “Climate change: how to get your message across to consumers” (March 2007) to one-day master classes on stakeholder engagement, hosted by the likes of Ethical Corporation and Business in the Community (BITC), organizations which are part NGO, part CSR consultancy. These events generally take place in top London hotels, at which participants are treated to “business-leaders’ breakfasts” and glossy leather-bound conference packs. Common are joint panel presentations by the CSR executive of a multinational enterprise and the representative from a partner NGO, offering “lessons learned” from their shared experience. Such conventions commonly include practical learning forums or training seminars on ethical and social technologies, such as scenario planning or social-impact assessment, that contribute to an ethos of technocratic rationalism. Yet these are combined with “celebrity” speeches by the chairmen of global corporations, government ministers, or aspiring future leaders hoping to attach their names to the optimistic promise of CSR. This was manifest at the convention launching the 2006 BITC Index, which opened with David Cameron’s promising a Conservative rule which offered a “lighter regulatory touch” to companies that demonstrate social responsibility; a bid, in his words, “to reclaim corporate responsibility for the political centre-right.” Meanwhile the UK government-funded “Beyond CSR?” event held at the National Liberal Club kicked off with a debate between Labour MP and former head of the UK Department for International Development (DFID) Clare Short and Conservative MP and former cabinet minister John Redwood (22 May 2006). But what had been billed as a political debate turned quickly into vocal affirmations of mutual agreement, exemplifying the apparent ability of CSR to replace political partisanship with a competition for who can proclaim collective responsibility the loudest.

Certain events in the CSR calendar are devoted to generating particular products such as codes of conduct, accountability frameworks, and indices. A high point is the launch of BITC’s annual CR index, “the UK’s leading benchmark of responsible business” (BITC 2006: 4) on which companies vie for top spot. Companies submit detailed reports on their CSR activities to be ranked according to a set of complicated metrics. Each year BITC packs the Millennium Hotel in Knightsbridge with over 400 executives and CSR managers of some of Europe’s largest companies for the launch of its index. Yet here the managerial model offered by the Index, as a tool for measuring corporate responsibility, is underpinned by an ethos of zealous moral endeavour. The event unfolds as a highly orchestrated theatre of virtue, with all the ritualised trappings of a speech by the Prince of Wales piped in on video link and awards presented to the companies ranking top of the index, backed by a soundtrack of uplifting music. The presentation of awards is followed by lofty speeches promising to achieve even greater heights of CSR and thanking “the public” for such recognition. Within these arenas, performers take on the mantle of “integrity warriors,” demonstrating their commitment to “funding virtue” for the collective good (Sampson 2005: 114).

As companies strive for recognition as the best corporate citizen, awards become a marker of success in this competitive market of social responsibility. While executives stress that “CSR is not about winning awards,” the symbolic value of such prizes is significant. Presented by organizations that are seen to represent common societal values or the “voice of the community,” and at the same time the result of rigorous metrics, awards act as symbolic proof authenticating the companies’ moral claims as agents of social improvement. Thus awards come to symbolize a kind of reciprocal gratitude in return for the benefits provided through the companies’ moral endeavors, so unsettling the economistic register of “social investment” and “enlightened self-interest” with the social rituals of gift-giving.

Yet of course such events are not only highly ritualized, they are exclusive. While the rhetoric is one of societal consensus and inclusion, the reality of such gatherings is that only those who are invited by the organizers or those who can afford the prohibitively high admission fee can attend. As Sampson (2005: 114) writes of the Tenth Anti-Corruption Conference, “Underlining the importance of this event were the access conditions: the participation fee for the three days was no less than US$890.… So much for the grassroots element.” Likewise the CSR conventions where you would expect to pay a minimum of GBP 895, or as much as GBP 2000 for a two-day function. In this way the CSR industry often excludes from its discussions all but representatives from very well resourced corporations or international bodies. The appearance of consensus between participants, and the allegiance to the shared goals of development through business, is produced by the exclusion of groups with alternative visions, conflicting agendas, or simply smaller budgets. Actors with fewer resources, who tell a different story to that of the common interests that the CSR movement strives to project, are thus marginalized from this hegemonic mainstream.

This was starkly demonstrated at the 2004 Business and Human Rights event entitled “Spheres of influence: Understanding human rights in business” (London, 9 December 2004). Tickets for the one-day conference, which was chaired by Mary Robinson (former president of Ireland and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights) cost GBP 400. The conference began with a presentation by the Deputy Chairman of Barclays Bank. He stressed the need for global financial institutions to safeguard human rights through rigorous “stakeholder engagement,” and to ensure the “free, prior, and info...