BUSINESSES WITHOUT CORPORATE CSR

In my previous blogs I have been focusing on corporations and their csr operations. However, today I want to analyze corporations which does not have any corporate csr model in place. This is something I have rarely been thinking about throughout my experiences. I will have an end goal with this post, in which I want to learn how competitive these structures are opposed to corporate csr structures, furthermore grasping global impacts which these corporations expose. As usual, I will share my insights and deeper understanding of sustainability. If you are unsure about CSR, just click (here ).

I will build this report throughout this format,
- Finding large evidence of a lacking corporate csr model
- Determining its impacts
- Describing surrounding competitiveness, and finally
- Summarizing and concluding these results

Corporatet csr protests at WTO in Seattle, 1999 (Source found here). At a major government meeting various trading rules were discussed. First, there was a crackdown in free speech in the name of free trade. Enormous public protests ensued. Mainly, there were many differences in the perspectives of developing and industrialized nations on the current reality of free trade and how it affected them. It resulted in a WTO failure to agree on many issues, without adopting any corporate csr resolutions. Developing countries were sidelined and one delegate even physically barred from a meeting.

We are talking about the global WTO (world trade organization), a vast key to trading around the world. A leader that should well represent corporate csr. The question is then if there is financial value in a reputation for corporate social responsibility? Well, let us take a look how it looks when a corporation is all on the verge into a crisis such as the WTO. Could a reputation for social responsibility act as a 'reservoir of goodwill' during a corporate crisis?

By examining investor reaction to the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization (WTO)failure(source found here), written by Epstein, caused by disagreement among member nations on labor and environmental standards and public protests over the same. Seattle represented apparent heightened demand for corporate csr and an increased risk of stricter, future regulation. It was found that a reputation for social responsibility protected firms from stock declines associated with this crisis, even when controlling for possible trade and industry effects.

Obviously, most major corporations learned from this point onwards, and enabled policies, structures, and models of corporate csr. Especially during such a large event, media coverage could risk huge decline of profits if unwanted truths of unethical csr leaked out. this was now a fact. However, back to one of my previous posts (SUSTAINABILITY IN CORPORATE CSR ), The corporations are in corporate csr for the profits, and not for the good will, since the truth is that even not the WTO could adopt proper CSR policies up to the point of year 2000.


Thank you!