评论翻译：The key to corporate social responsibility is in respecting people’s rights
魏一帆 更新于2009年10月26日
Note: The following is a translation of an editorial which first appeared in Southern Weekly on Oct. 22. The original can be found here.
The key to corporate social responsibility is in respecting people’s rights
By Qiu Feng (秋风)
The economics department of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences recently issued the “2009 Blue Book on Chinese Corporate Social Responsibility” (中国企业社会责任蓝皮书2009). Not surprisingly, it claims that the overall level of corporate social responsibility in China is rather low. However, the two conclusions in the report are worth discussion: Among each kind of ownership structure, central-state owned enterprises have the most social responsibility, and the larger the business, the more social responsibility there is.
The compilers of this report quoted many statistics and used many complex mathematical formulas to come up with these two conclusions. However, if statistics and mathematical formulas contradict what is commonly observed in society, then by default there must be something wrong with the premise. Unfortunately, this is the very problem with the Blue Book.
The irony of all this is that the same day the Blue Book was released, the State Electricity Regulatory Commission released a set of contradictory data. It said that the ten largest coal burning electricity producers created 87 billion RMB in environmental damage last year. Of these, Huaneng [华能] and Datang [大唐] are the two largest producers of carbon emissions and therefore have the worst impact on the environment. Yet they rank fourth and fifth respectively on the list of of most socially responsible enterprises. This is proof enough that the Blue Book’s conclusions are unrealistic.
However, if we take a step back and assume these two conclusions are correct, it is still important to provide an explanation based on the facts as well as some constructive deductions. The extrapolations made by the compilers of the Blue Book, however, are extremely biased.
For example, the publishers of the Blue Book have used the SASAC’s promulgation of social responsibility over recent years as a measurement of the outstanding performance of central-state owned enterprises. If this logic is correct, then these national enterprises have not been the most socially responsible. Rather the SASAC itself should be on the top of the list. For these businesses, having an outstanding record of social responsibility is not the result of a conscious decision. It is the product of following administrative orders.
With this in mind, the makers of the Blue Book should not have put state owned enterprises at the front of the list. The original intention of creating this list was to encourage all businesses to be independent entities who voluntarily and consciously take on the burden of social responsibility. And only in this way will actions related to these business practices become long term and sustainable.
Looking at this problem from another angle, it can be said that state owned enterprises should probably not be included on this list at all. They are supposed to be businesses specifically established for the public interest. How can the average privately owned business be held to this standard of social responsibility? Naturally, if one sees central-state owned enterprises as businesses that pursue profit for themselves then this is another matter altogether. However, it begs the question of what basis this kind of enterprise stands on. It’s a slippery slope of all kinds of confusion of their needs and characteristics, making a list of the most socially responsible businesses a complete mess.
The Blue Book’s publishers have explained that the relationship between business size and social responsibility is correlative and that these large companies end up emphasizing social responsibility all the more. This conclusion is misleading. From the perspective of society, it is entirely reasonable for public groups and NGOs to be concerned about how large businesses fulfill their responsibilities because their effect on the environment and society is much greater. However, to say that the larger you are the more responsibility you feel is an obvious breach of common sense.
This kind of deduction is supported in one sense by a very commonly held superstition among those in “imperial courts” regarding business types. Another aspect is the near universal and serious misunderstanding about corporate social responsibility, namely whichever business’ charitable donations are largest is the most socially responsible. This clearly distorts the notion of social responsibility. This concept is first of all an experience of the operations of a business and whether or not it satisfactorily protects the interests of its employees and respects the rights of consumers. Rights and respect come first. After this comes the question of whether or not a business is adequately aware of negative consequences of their own business activities. Do they expend as much effort as possible to mitigate detrimental effects on the environment? The last criterion is a company’s charitable service and philanthropic donations. The first two criteria are often difficult to measure with statistics. Therefore, those who create these lists tend primarily to rely on measures such as donations. However, it is precisely those things which cannot be measured which constitute the core of social responsibility.
Another aspect of this problem is that even if we calculate the size of chartable donations, we cannot simply look at the absolute number. For example, one small business’ annual donations may amount to 100,000 RMB, accounting for 10% of earned profits. Another business might donate 100 million RMB which is only 1% of earned profits. Which one of these business has a greater awareness of social responsibility? The answer is still not as obvious as it seems. As far as society is concerned, the most important factors are the company’s awareness of its responsibility and the people involved. Money is secondary. If we use the size of donations to designate our champions of social responsibility, it will encourage opportunism. A company may give a sizable chunk of money to an environmental organization now and later seriously pollute the environment. Some may make charitable contributions one day and the next wantonly encroach on the interests of consumers. Unfortunately, this is a common problem with the majority of lists of top charitable and philanthropic organizations.
On the whole Chinese businesses indeed do not satisfactorily perform their responsibilities, yet the compliers of these lists can probably promote awareness of the need to do so. However, when this is done, the economic superstitions surrounding national and large scale businesses cannot be used to guide our thinking. Otherwise, it is very possible it will defeat the purpose of these lists in the first place.
