Corporate Social Resonsibility

Below the reader is invited to find my thoughts on Corporate Social Responsibility. This can be a rewarding read, since after -too coarse- an overview of existing views a perspective is offered, which has good potential to significantly advance the case for CSR and thereby the well being of the unit of organization at hand, as well as the stakeholders it deals with. The span of the organization is linked closely to its potential for change for the better. It is argued that global corporations have a unique potential and therefore matching responsibility to play an explicit positive leading role regarding pressing global issues. Some issues come to the fore: the complexity of the domains at hand, makes it hard to reach a point where conclusions might be found. This is at odds with a proactive, result orientation, typical for the commercial domain, where global corporations exist in an effective line of reasoning depends on to what extend my audience is willing and able to follow the lines here presented my sense of urgency plays a significant and possibly distorting role in an effort to reach a clear picture regarding the previous points my orientation in Integral theory implies inclusion for interiority, which reaches into a spiritual realm. A perspective which doesn’t facilitate the first two points reputation persuades There are numerous initiatives in as well as outside academia, aimed at probing effective angles regarding pressing global issues. As I understand them, there’s a strong need for vision, leadership, inspiration, as well as hands on tools to start the change one wants to see. The ones that use methodologies where the intellectual domain is embedded in larger frameworks, seem to have the best potential to deliver what’s needed now: sustainable results i, ii, iii It is my strong conviction that large corporations are in a unique position to lead global change for the better. Richard Barrettiv: ´Wealth has become the most important determinant of political power´. For Helen-Jane Nelson, corporations have to lead the wayv. To me it is a platitude to talk about urgency regarding contemporary global problems; the question probably is when and how will we face the inevitable turmoil vi. Corporations are significantly more able than other players (consumers, NGO´s, governments) to persuade other stakeholders to follow suit. As Tex Gunning stated in a recent interview vii: ´ The core insight about great leadership and great companies comes down to service. We as individuals should entirely integrate our personal lives and our search for meaning with our business lives´. After concluding that economic development does not serve most people now, he suggests using commercial mechanisms for the social capital market. A sort-like point is being made by Peter Drucker, who proposes a dual responsibility for leaders: to lead their organization to excellence, as well as take personal responsibility for the commonsviii. Fred Block continues this line of reasoning with Goethe’s Sorcerer’s apprenticeix. This metaphor clearly shows how what has delivered affluence, has run amok. Jonathon Porritt takes it a step further: ´today's so-called 'ecological crisis' is in essence a crisis of the human spirit´..´So what chances are there for some kind of spiritual renaissance in addressing this crisis, and to what extent will the world's religions enhance or impede such a renaissance?´x Considering the high level of complexity of our current global problems, as well as Einstein’s perception that problems can’t be solved on the level they were created, there’s another step to be made. In Peter Senge, Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski´s ´Presencing´xi a clear path is indicated towards a greater spiritual inclusion. No woolly feel good stories, but best of class minds endeavouring into realms where anyone should go who is interested in fundamental, sustainable change for the better. Tex Gunning´s dedication to Dadi Jankixii fits in this line of development. The latter point brings me to a developmental perspective, as proposed by Robert Keganxiii and a host of developmental psychologistsxiv: life seems to evolve, from physiosphere, biosphere, noosphere to theosphere. Not in a clockwork fashion, but emerging as we make choices. Organizations share essential qualities with humans, as Arie de Geus proposes; they too evolvexv. The development of key players in organizations can have significant influence on how organizations evolve. The dynamics of this process I think are key for coming to grips with optimizing the impact of an organization on global problems. All this doesn’t mean that all things material should be jettisoned. As Ken Wilber (who’s perspective Otto Scharmer compares to his own, but then from 50.000 ft upxvi) argues: ´it’s an aqalxvii affair, where everyone’s right, albeit partially soxviii. Integral theory, as proposed by Ken Wilber, to me represents the summit of a potential for fundamental change for the better. Elaborating would take us beyond the framework of this brief explication. For those interested, some links: xix, xx,xxi What I would like to explore probably has become clear by now: (i) how to facilitate development of members in an organization, so they can lead (´to go first´xxii) with vision, compassion, dedication. Directly, as well as indirectly, inside as well as outside the organization (whose boundaries are fading) (ii) what are the structures, cultures, behaviours, states of mind, lines of development (iii) how do these facets interact, enhance, hinder each other, as well as increasing circles around them Emil Möller