Grahame Thompson just published an interesting piece on the OpenDemocracy website. He discusses the issue of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and challenges the common notion that it contributes to a progressive agenda. To make his case, he presents neo-liberalism not just as a political-economic model of organization but also as a mode of governance:
“The key aspects here are the responsibilisation of autonomous agents; the production of “freedoms” that this engenders for these agents in the economic field in particular, and the encouragement of self-governance and self-reliance on their part; and the creation of mechanisms of indirect “governance at a distance” rather than direct interventionism.
.
Furthermore, there is an emphasis on establishing and organising the “conduct of conduct”: this involves the replacement of hierarchical administrative means of direct governance with a system of benchmarks, standards, targets, and norms that are set for agents and that can be monitored and audited.
.
. . . There is a clear connection between this state-led neo-liberal project and the movement in the social-economic sphere associated with “corporate social responsibility“(CSR). This movement “responsibilises” autonomous agents (companies), who increasingly organise their own self-governance, setting themselves targets and standards that they themselves police. Inasmuch as a wide range of organisations – companies, NGOs, governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, individuals, religious organisations, academics – “advocate” CSR they are, in effect, enacting and performing such a neo-liberal programme on themselves and others.
.
In this light, the “progressive” appeal of the CSR movement – embracing issues of ethical investment and ethical consumption – looks somewhat different. The movement could in fact be viewed as an integral aspect of the neo-liberal programme.”
As an alternative to the focus on CSR, Thompson proposes to concentrate on “the major legal bastion which allows [the corporate sector] to escape its responsibilities: limited liability.” Such strategy could potentially avoid Manichean pictures so common in this debate. Whether or not one agrees with Thompson, it’s worth thinking harder about it.
