Corporate Global Responsibility

We have all heard of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CSR, as described in an African business magazine, has three components: “a bid to obey the letter and the spirit of the law, by being ethical, transparent and fair, and having integrity; mitigating or remedying any operational harm that companies do, particularly environmental harm; for sustainable development.” This definition comes from the magazine Business Monthly: East African Edition, January 2009, reflecting the international popularity this concept has gained.

But my (albeit minimal) experience abroad begs the question: To what degree should international issues be addressed by an individual entity? In the ever-rapidly globalizing world of our time, no one can deny the need to stop looking at issues of development with an ego-centric lens. So when people refer to the obligation of organizations to be conscious to their surrounding environment – natural and social – how far does this extend? Globalization is undeniable; so should not the social responsibility of an organization span in conjunction with this phenomenon?

Furthermore, even if it is agreed that an organization’s socio-environmental responsibility lies beyond local and domestic borders, should this apply to all organizations? For instance, does a homeless shelter in San Francisco have an obligation to consider homeless people (more specifically, internally displaced persons IDP) in northern Uganda? Or does the inherit nature of the organization (i.e. assisting homeless people) render it exempt from seeking to contribute to a needy population elsewhere? Is there a ‘quota’ of social and/or global responsibility that each corporation and organization should meet – whether fulfilled locally, domestically, or abroad?

The previously-quoted article from Business Monthly discusses the concept of Corporate Philanthropy. Corporate Philanthropy is the “focus on the areas where social and economic interests intersect, and apply your distinctive corporate resources, not just your money, to solving social challenges. A company’s success comes not only from what it does but from the environment in which it operates. Unless the environment is right, the company will have a hard time being competitive. Social and economic objectives are not separate.” The subject of this article seemingly echoes a similar concept: the triple bottom line.

Organizations in the globalizing world must be conscious of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of their actions and measure their profits accordingly. Measuring an organization’s success and impact with the single bottom line- economic profit- is not sustainable. As natural resources are being depleted and the value of current socio-economic resources (such as labor, and certain skills and knowledge) is diminishing, money can no longer be the sole motivating factor considered in development.

So what becomes the drive for development? Development is ultimately intended to improve quality of life through provision of basic needs, is it not? This usually takes the form of infrastructure development, which in turn allows for economic development and hopefully opportunity for increased access to employment. Employment leads to money; money buys foods, clothes, shelter, education; food, clothes, shelter, and education improve quality of life; and the whole thing should come full circle to increased development, right?

But as this cycle (ideally) rolls forward, increasing in momentum and size, it sucks in those precious limited resources leaving a barren path in its wake. Enter the concept of sustainable development, which fits quite nicely alongside the triple bottom line and Corporate Social Responsibility (among other developmental buzz-word concepts). So then what is Corporate Global Responsibility? Initially, in my mind, it was a business’ obligation to sustainable international development. But as I hash out my own perceptions, understandings, and ideas on development, I realize this concept should be broadened. Organizational Global Responsibility? No, that sounds like it pertains too closely to order and structure. Global Responsibility of Organizations (GRO)? Yeah, that’s a little catchier. Who would have thought trying to coin a buzzword via blog post would be so tough? Regardless of how it is referenced, I strongly believe that the responsibility of sustainable international development must be valued enough for installation into the existence and workings of every organization.

This thought process can- and does- go on forever. These are just a few of the thoughts that my experiences in Kenya provoke to the forefront of my view on…well…life. It’s all food for thought – I’ve been indulging and thought I would share.