Grænser for ansvar - Susanne Holmström

tled “Environmental Reputation in Business Strategy”, to feature Shell, BP, BNPL, Burson-Marsteller, and Nestlé discussing
issues of “reputation management” with the likes of Greenpeace and SustainAbility.
Citat 57: Tidligere kombattanter – store erhvervsvirksomheder og miljø-NGOere – mødes nu ”for en konstruktiv dialog
med henblik på gennemførelsen af langsigtede miljøløsninger” (Rowell 2001:6).
Vi kan se en bevægelse fra NGO-partnerskaber fra vægt på stat mod erhvervsliv. Det ses der forskellige for-
klaringer på. Den ene, at NGOeres ‘corporate partnerships’ på dette stadie overvejende iagttages som legiti-
merende, som et tegn på succes, på, at man har ‘tæmmet the corporate beast’, mens kritiske iagttagelser går
på, at protestbevægelserne hermed hjælper til at bevare status quo:
Corporate partnerships have come to be viewed not just as a source of funding but even as a source of legitimation, as a
sign of “success” and accomplishment. An environmental group that forms a partnership with McDonald’s or International
Paper usually gets some kind of concession from the company, however trivial, which the organization can tout as
proof of its ability to tame the corporate beast.
... The very groups that say they care about the environment are lending their good names to help corporations maintain
their status quo. Companies may sell eco-happy trinkets or surrender to environmentalist demands on small issues,
but overall these deals are helping companies use their financial and political clout to divide and conquer the environmental
movement. (1)
”Working with business is as important to us as munching bamboo is for a panda.” said a representative from the World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which now receives £1 million a year in the UK from corporate sources.(2)
Citat 58:(1) (PR-Watch 2001:1-2; (2) (Rowell 2001:6) mf
En anden forklaring er, at det opleves, at magten er skiftet fra politik til erhvervsliv:
Melchette (se Citat 57, sh) told the gathering that environmentalists have moved on since their early campaigning days in
the 1970s and 1980s, when their primary mission was to “raise the issue” of environmental problems. Now, he argued,
they had to look more at solutions and focus more on business than politics because of “a shift in power from politics
to business”.
Citat 59: NGOere siges at vende deres opmærksomhed fra politik til erhvervsliv, fordi de oplever ”et skift i magtbalancen
fra politik til erhvervsliv” (Rowell 2001) mf.
Politiksystemet bliver i perioden – ligeså vel som orienteret mod lovgivning – orienteret mod governance
strukturer og mod at skabe illusionen af et helhedsperspektiv og af en ’fælles skæbne’ (Pedersen 1990:107).
“Support and dialogue is becoming more important than control” (Citat 62) kan stå som det diskursiverede
politiske motto for perioden. Den politiske strategi at supplere eller erstatte lovgivning med ’governance
structures’ bliver markant mere fremherskende. En hyppig forklaring fra samfundsforskningen er problemet
med samfundets kompleksitet, som belaster staten i en sådan grad, at den bliver ineffektiv som demokratiets
forvalter:
- weaker in certain dimensions than it was, and yet is ever more over-extended in providing a diverse range of services
and seeking to regulate an ever-widening range of contingencies. As such it is too overloaded to act as an effective democratic
overseer and too enmeshed in trying to rationalise its own activities to offer a check to the growth of private and
public managerial power.
Citat 60: (Hirst 1997:10).
Til forskel fra den konventionelle lov, som fungerer obligatorisk, karakteriseres denne nye form for politisk
regulering ved tilsyneladende at være frivillig for erhvervslivet. Den har flere strenge. Dels opstilling af et
spejl for markedet med billedet af den samfundsansvarlige virksomhed som den mest konkurrencedygtige, og
forestillingen om den politiske forbruger, -medarbejder, -investor. Dels initiativer til forskellige fora for for-
handling af erhvervslivets grænser, fx The Copenhagen Centre 1998, FNs Global Compact 1999, OECD Fo-
rum 2001, EU-kommissionens dialog for ”social responsibility of multinational enterprises 2001” (EU 2001).
131