Fishy business. The Social Impact of SST.pdf - Act Now!

esponsibility goes beyond financial obligations to shareholders. A number of British companies,fore example, have struck up partnerships with NGO’s that lend their ‘brands’ to these companiesin return for social or environmental monitoring. British American Tobacco (BAT), for example,has brought in consultants of all kinds to manage ‘stakeholder dialogues’ with health officials,farmers, office workers and others in the many developing countires where they operate. Theseare voluntary dialogues, and clever marketing strategies as well. In part, too, they are attempts tofend of more invasive government regulations (of the sort known to France and Germany, forexample---because only recently have publicly traded companies in the UK been forced todivulge financially material environmental and social risks). The questions such voluntarymeasures raise are really that of control, and language. Corporate social responsibility is beingdefined by these companies, just as is the term ‘stakeholder’ ---meaning who exactly constitutes astakeholder in an enterprise? (Would Wewak residents suffering from SST’s odour be consideredstakeholders, for example?) These processes are now being systematized by major corporations inthis emergency CSR movement. We have only to recall what philosopher Michael Foucault saidabout organization being a form of social control to wonder whether this work should be left tothe companies themselves.Again, this is a positive step. But it may also be a dangerous one. In a recent article on the CSRmovement by law professor John M. Conley (Conley 2005), ExxonMobil’s 2003 company reportis cited as an example of controlling corporate responsibility away in a form of Adam Smithspeak.The report says, “’Our activities and those of others in private industry deliver economicbenefits and help advance worthwhile societal goals.’” As Conley notes, the report goes on toexplain in the rhetoric of engineering that ExxonMobil’s “’wider involvement in society’ will begoverned by ’hard analysis, the rigorously applied management systems’ that mark its coreendeavours. ‘Soft’ critics need not apply.”This recalls the interview our team had with Ian Boatwood of SST, who, in response to aquestion about how they give back to town, said simply,Well, we employ a lot of people. A tuna factory like this, there are multipliers out there. Wedo half a million plus business in town, we generate all our own power here, we don’t usethe town supply…we are using water for the town supply, though. We throw revenues backto the Water Board and wages going out into the business communities, we inject moneyinto the community, we get involved in some sponsorships.When we asked if this meant sporting sponsorships, he said, “No, but I mean we get involved inthe community as much as we can. Our cafeteria buys supplies locally…so it’s…some of thelocal businesses in PNG we buy a lot of parts from.”v. RecommendationsWhere there are no regulations in place, some sort of the principles of best practice shouldapply, so that companies actively seek out community consultation, create the means ofdebating issues with the community, and act in a timely manner to redress identified grievances.WWF has already suggested independent monitoring for environmental and social impacts, andwe especially endorse their suggestion that “a clear framework be set up for responding tonegative social trends with costs to be met jointly by the company and government agencies.”170