In the selection from "Flammable" by Auyero and Swistun, there is an account of the Shell Company responding to the conditions around one of its refineries in Argentina. As a response to public outcry over the health conditions and high levels of lead in the water and soil in nearby "shantytowns" and among many of its inhabitants, it responds with "special programs" and pseudo-promotional catalogs. These catalogs list its response programs in the area, yet it turns most of the outrage into its "active policies". It is a public relations campaign instead of a humanitarian response.
By differing with moral outrage in favor of disavowing its legal responsibility with these conditions and future investment conditions in the region, it also exposes its inherently inhumane policies. If it is simply a matter of language, then it is easy to see why most accidents may be dismissed as "lessons learned". The systemization of corporate interests (economically and socially) reveals the limitations of the system itself when morality is involved. This corporation reveals the systemic violence upon which it depends.
As Auyero and Swistun state: " In hiding actual life conditions, the catalog reveals the way in which a corporation seeks to signal its legitimacy (euphemized as 'corporate social responsibility') in the face of massive suffering; a suffering that is factually denied at the same time it is invoked(80)".
Is this not systemic violence in practice?
Adrian Parr raises a similar criticism against corporate greenwashing, another form of CSR that does away with the humanitarian and environmental issues prompted by the activities of companies such as BP, McDonalds, Walmart, Starbucks etc., by revamping the company's profile in ways that make it appear more "responsible".
ReplyDeleteWhether it's a matter of responsibility towards the environment, the consumer, the laborer or the grower, the intention behind greenwashing is to give capitalism a make-over. For the argument of "free-market" to continue to be valid it is necessary that the relation between procuder/laborer - product - consumer is never questioned.
e-book available here: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262013061intro1.pdf
or
PARR, Adrian. Hijacking Sustainability (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2009)
Yes, I agree with Slave to the page. I was watched the YES MAN that many companies destroying the environment but those companies advertising produce of green and clean water, also. They spend a lot of money toward on advertising that many consumers do not know of destroying.
ReplyDelete