1 âLet Business Lift Africa Out of Povertyâ
Global Corporate CitizenshipâA New Orthodoxy
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 JULY 2000 KOFI ANNAN (then UN Secretary-General) announced the inauguration of a new Global Compact between business and civil society, symbolically unleashing the vast potential of enterprise in the realm of development:
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 (26 July 2000, New York).
In the years preceding and following the launch, the CSR movement gained momentum, recruiting support from seemingly diverse corners and creating coalitions between unexpected partners eager to realise this union of global markets and universal ideals. The primacy of the market as the panacea to poverty has been resoundingly proclaimed not only by leaders of transnational corporations and multilateral development institutions, but increasingly by NGOs held up to represent the âvoice of civil societyâ. Drawing on idioms of emancipation through the market, CSR has thus demonstrated a great capacity to unite disparate actors (and former combatants) in an apparently mutual enterprise of sustainable development. While Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, former chairman of Anglo American and Shell, commands us to âlet business lift Africa out of povertyâ1, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) reminds readers of the Financial Times in a half page advertisement that, âthe poor need business to invest in their future. Business needs the poor because they are the futureâ (UNDP 2005).
This exuberance in the public arena has been matched (and reinforced) by academic tributes from scholars heralding CSR (and its corollary corporate citizenship) as the new hope for development where global corporations transcend the pitfalls of state-led development and the politics of national government2:
Never before has a partnership been created between the highest levels of the UN, business, NGOs and labour representatives. Never before has such a partnership had the open-ended mandate of furthering the core UN conventions and declarations covering labour standards, human rights and the environment . . . The stakes are high . . . the potential gains are immense (Zadek 2001: 102).
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 governance and ethical standards3. Codes, norms and standards thus appear as components of a new global âmoral orderâ (Harper 2000). But this preoccupation with the global dimension of CSRâwhether as an instrument of social improvement worldwide, or a tool of global governmentalityâhas resulted in an analysis of CSR disembedded from its social practice. We are left asking, how is this new orthodoxy of âcompassionate capitalismâ and corporate responsibility forged? And, what actors and interests work towards sustaining, reinforcing and extending its power?
The main purpose of this chapter is to shed light on these processes, and in particular the ritualised and performative dynamics of CSR, which I argue, are crucial to establishing it as development orthodoxy. I trace the performance of CSR through the circuit of conventions and conferences, policy forums, multi-partner roundtables and award ceremonies that constitute the elite âglobalâ 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 actorsâfrom captains of industry to representatives of the âgrass rootsâ, from business schools to UN agenciesâinvolved in the production of this powerful discourse; and we begin to see the effects of this apparent shift from agonistic to collaborative, from conflictual to consensual. This alerts us to one of the most striking aspects of the CSR movement: the role of national governments, often described by corporate executives and their NGO counterparts alike as âmissing in actionâ, as they are noticeable as much by their absence as their presence.
Within these arenas corporate executives come together with representatives of global NGOs, and the growing army of CSR consultants or âprofessionalsâ, from dozens of small firms or non-profits (the boundary between which is often blurred). Participants extol the virtues of bi-, tri- or multi-sector partnerships, develop international standards and initiatives to improve the global reach of the CSR movement; and present case studies describing âbest-practiceâ or âlessons-learntâ from their engagement with âlocal communitiesâ, the subjects of their ethical endeavours. 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.
The celebration of corporate virtue, underpinned by a moral register of compassionate capitalism, seems to clash with the commitment to âmarket rationalityâ espoused in the language of âthe business case for CSRâ, âenlightened self-interestâ, and not least, âthe fortune at the bottom of the pyramidâ. This reveals what at first appears to be a peculiar contradiction at play in the production of CSR. On the one hand the invocation of markets as the cure for poverty strives to reaffirm the commitment to a supposedly amoral capitalist rationalityâthe fundamental logic of maximisation. On the other hand, this vision of business-led development underwritten by an ideal of corporate citizenship is anything but amoral. As I argue throughout the book, the confluence of these two apparently discordant discoursesâmoral mission and market rationalismâis not only central to the performance of corporate social responsibility, but fundamental to the production and expansion of corporate capitalism.
The ethnographic focus of the chapter is London, global financial capital, home to some of the worldâs largest multinationals and central hub of the booming industry in CSR. 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 âBeyond Petroleumâ rather than âBritish Petroleumâ). Standard Bank promises to âbank the unbankedâ across Africa. And, even BAE Systems (the worldâs second biggest defence contractor) advertises its social responsibility on the London underground beneath the slogan âmaking the world a safer placeâ4. Thus a senior economist and CSR advisor for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) remarked at a 2005 CSR industry event in London: âI have always viewed London as being the CSR capital of the worldâall the leading CSR organisations are within a five mile radius of where we are now. I think the London CSR community has done a great service to the world, getting governments, business and NGOs to work togetherâ. As a central site of CSR performance, London thus comes to stand for âthe globalâ, an abstract site de-localized and detached from its UK context, where corporate elites and development policy-makers converge in the service of development; put another way, where âglobal-thinkingâ goes on, and is then crystallized in international codes of conduct, standards, social technologies and reporting schemes. The ethical regimes which emerge from such coalitions are widely seen as new forms of global governance through which accountability, or the appearance of it, is rendered. The corollary to this performance of global corporate citizenship, is the âlocalâ, framed around a moral imaginary of âcommunityâ which provides the intended target of these cosmopolitan coalitions. It is here, according to the constant refrain âthink global, act localâ, that the abstracted ideals of corporate responsibility become tangible as they give rise to empowerment projects, socio-economic development funds, and even the solid concrete bricks of HIV clinics and mine schools: the localised products of âethical capitalismâ. Thus, the âglobalâ and the âlocalâ are seamlessly woven together in a coherent narrative of good corporate citizenship.
The ubiquitous exhortation to âpartnershipâ 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 shown5. In the case of CSR however, the concept of partnership has demonstrated even broader appeal, and greater discursive power, in its capacity to manufacture apparent consensus in a shared enterprise, as all parties proclaim a collaborative venture for a collective goal of sustainable development and elevate âthe global marketâ as the fundamental mechanism through which this can be achieved. For, as the business-led paradigm of development 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 maximisation and the moral imperatives of development.
Theatres of Virtue
In October 2005 senior executives from several of the worldâs biggest TNCs (including Anglo American, Shell, Vodaphone and Coca Cola) came together with numerous consultants in search of contracts, and NGO representatives (those willing or able to pay the ÂŁ695 per day fee) at the Regentâs Park Marriott Hotel in London, for a convention hosted by Ethical Corporation on âThe New Role of Business in Developmentâ. âThe real reason for being in business is to create wealthâ the poster announced, âso is it good business to join the fight against poverty?â As if in response, the conference was opened by the director of the Shell Foundation, Kurt Hoffman, forcefully asserting 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 Blairâs Africa Commissionâwhich has placed a welcome emphasis on the role of the private sectorâneeds to push the pro-poor enterprise agenda even further6.
The underlying theme of Hoffmanâs speech was the failure of development led by a reactionary parochial state sector burdened with a moral mission of upliftmentâthe modern day legacy of, as he put it, âthe white manâs burdenâ. The solution, according to Hoffman, is to be found in the world of big business, where technocratic efficiency comes together with competitive creativity. âLet us choose to unite the power of marketsâ he announced, quoting Kofi Annanâs battle cry. Yet in spite of the avowed market logic of this corporate discourse of development, Hoffman went on to invoke Trumanâs inaugural address of 1949, harking back to the profoundly moral vision of progress and state-led development that he had just consigned to the failures of the past:
I believe that we should make available to peace-loving peoples the benefits of our store of technical knowledge in order to help them realize their aspirations for a better life . . . Greater production is the key to prosperity and peace and the key to greater production is a wider and more vigorous application of modern scientific and technical knowledge (Hoffman 2005, quoting Trumanâs Inaugural Address 1949).
Hoffmanâs speech thus exemplifies the slippage between seemingly discordant registers of scientistic rationalism and moral imperative, interweaving contemporary paradigms of sustainable development with anachronistic notions of corporate virtue to produce a compelling master narrative of corporate citizenship. Put another way, as the resident anthropologist at one of Anglo Americanâs ârivalâ mining companies remarked: âwe used to say âgod bless youâ, now we say âletâs have sustainable development!â Sometimes, Iâm not entirely sure what the difference is.â
The next speaker on the conference bill, a representative from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), echoed the dominant economistic equation: poverty eradication through access to expanding markets, and profit generation through the vast reserve of untapped customers and aspirant entrepreneurs in developing countries:
Whatâs the point in expanding markets? The market creates opportunities. When youâre cut out of the market, youâre cut out of the social system, youâre not empowered. We donât want to squeeze out development agenciesâthey can still do development . . . One unique contribution that business provides is enterpriseâenterprising ways out of poverty, this isnât about doing good, itâs 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, 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 embrace the opportunities provided by expanding business, and uplift him- or herself out of poverty as they are brought into the global market7. However the mission of CSR goes far beyond the apparent benefits of foreign direct investment and market growth. It offers instead a vision of caring corporations that is a far cry from hard-line neoliberalism. As David Cameronâs statement quoted above exemplifies, TNCs are now urged to engage whole-heartedly 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. As such, CSR has figured prominently in recent white papers and policy reports of bilateral and multilateral development agencies. In their 2003 report on DFID and Corporate Social Responsibility, the UKâs Department for International Development (DFID) went so far as to discourage any move towards âinternationally legally binding frameworks for multinational companiesâ, arguing that a mandatory approach of this kind âmay divert attention and energy away from encouraging corporate social responsibility and towards legal processâ (DFID 2003: 9). This highlights the dominant commitment to voluntarism as a mechanism for harnessing the innate competitive ingenuity of business, and the rejection of regulation which have become the mainstay of CSR discourse, propounded by both corporations and many of their partners in development.
Speaker after speaker repeated the refrain of doing good business to do good, attended by compelling promises of âcollective responsibilityâ, âcommon goalsâ and âwin-win solutionsâ or as the representative from the OECD proposed: âget business to do what they do best . . . making profits and protecting our people and planet!â8. Positioned at the centre of the global economy with their extensive resources and drive for efficiency, TNCs are seen to be perfectly placed not only to implement this agenda but to lead it. Cameronâs exhortationââwho better than Coca Cola . . . to get materials out to needy populationsâ could be heard in various forms from executives and NGOs alike at the conference. Thus the director of the International Business Leaders Forumâs (IBLF) Partnering Initiative and author of numerous manuals and âhow-toâ books on business-NGO partnerships explained: âBusiness knows how to operate in certain parts of the world better than development agencies because of their reachâwe should follow them into Africa . . . Thereâs so much room for business to teach NGOs how to bring business into developmentâ. We were left in no doubt of this when a representative from the UK-based NGO Business in the Community told the speaker from Anglo American: âwe would love to have a lesson from the university of Anglo American in community social empowerment, let us learn from youâ.
This conference on the âNew Role of Business in Developmentâ was only one in the annual cycle of conferences hosted by Ethical Corporation, such as âClimate Change: How to Get your Message Across to Consumersâ (March 2007); or âHow to Make Ethical Branding Workâ (November 2006). But Ethical Corporation is not the only organisation in the CSR event business. Each year scores of events, from large-scale conferences to one-day training and discussion workshops are hosted by the likes of Business in the Community, Chatham House, and the IBLF. These gatherings usually take place in top London hotels at which participants are treated to âbusiness-leadersâ breakfastsâ, fine lunches and leather-bound conference packs. Common are joint panel presentations by the CSR executive of a TNC, coupled with the representative from a partner NGO offering âbest-practiceâ case studies and âlessons-learntâ from their shared experience.
One of the most commonly discussed questions at CSR events was âhow do we get sustainable development into the DNA of business and change its genetic code?â At the same time, the shift towards a corporate model of development has reversed the question to ask: âhow do we get business DNA into development and NGOs?â (chairman, Ethical Corporation Conference âThe New Role of Business in Development, 18â19 October 2005). Picking up the anthropomorphism inherent in the notion of corporate citizenship, humanising metaphors which present companies as sentient beings rather than impersonal machines are ubiquitous in the discourse of CSR. Crucially, the concept of corporate citizenship claims on behalf of the company a moral self. Companies thus emerge as âcitizensâ, complete with conscience, culture, DNA and even heart, through which their moral agency is apparently exercised9. One NGO partner of Anglo American, for example, said of the company: âas a corporate they do have a heart!â10. Similarly, the CEO of Anglo American herself states in the companyâs 2008 Report to Society: âfor Anglo American, there is simply no choice or trade-off . . . It is part of our DNA, embedded in our culture, and is fundamental to the way we do businessâ (Anglo ...