Greenwashing Globalisation?

What are the implications for global sustainable development? Sean de Cleene, of the African Institute of Corporate Citizenship suggests that “the future for countries like Malawi is in niche markets, and perhaps improved social and environmental performance can be value added – the market will pay a premium for something that meets people’s values”.208 This highlights the opportunities that are can be seized by some, but also the limitedness of niche responsible markets, so that only some countries will be able to serve such markets.

As responsible competitiveness depends on differentiating one country from another as being more or less responsible, it is not something that all governments can aspire to. The international branding opportunity for Costa Rica and Canada may be one that resonates with an interest in sustainability, but what of the brand opportunity for Mexico or China? The limitedness of ‘responsible markets’, especially those that pay premiums rather than requiring responsible production for no extra cost, means that a ‘responsibility race’ is improbable. Given that many social and environmental issues, such as climate change, disease and terrorism, can not be addressed without action in all parts of the world, the moves of some governments to seek and secure trade with responsible markets may be beneficial for those involved in the near to medium term, but not deliver the scale of changes required.

To accept the ‘competitiveness’ discourse as a starting point for government policy to promote sustainable development is problematic, for three reasons. First is the environmental cost of increasing transportation and associated pollution if increasing international trade. For example, the Canadian agricultural ministry’s encouragement of a perceived green brand for its products in places such as Mexico will not have a net positive environmental impact when we consider the transportation involved. Second is the issue of risk. Managing risk to incomes and resource flows is an important aspect of sustainable development. To the degree that international trade diversifies income and resource flows it can reduce the potential damage from disruption to specific flows, such as a failed harvest, but if it leads to increased dependence on specific markets, as well as cheap energy for transportation, then it increases the risk to the dependent community. The third problem with the competitiveness discourse concerns scale, in that it overplays the importance of international trade to the wellbeing of a people and their economy. The majority of trade in most countries is domestic, not foreign. That the interests of a minority of economic actors in a country involved in exports should determine government policy is questionable.

Despite these theoretical and methodological weaknesses of the proposition that global sustainable development can be enhanced by country-level responsible competitiveness strategies, the popularity of the concept grew in 2005 and is likely to in the coming years. This is because it offers a more refined story for proponents of current patterns of economic globalization.

Until now the ‘political brand proposition’ of the dominant players in the global economy has been that more trade is good for all, and can be promoted by removing trade barriers, protecting foreign-owned property, liberalizing financial markets, restricting government policy freedoms, and privatizing public assets. This ‘Washington Consensus’ is increasingly seen to have failed to deliver sustainable development. A new story is being sought to give a social justification for global capitalism. Therefore responsible competitiveness may become global capitalism’s new brand proposition, telling us - the consumer of political ideas - that a neo-liberal free trade agenda will not eat us up in a competitiveness race, but that it is compatible with our wellbeing, so long as governments help companies become more responsible and market themselves as such.

Some may question what it says of our moral character that our integrity and welfare, as communities and nations, has to become the stuff of sales pitch to others. At the heart of responsible competitiveness is a capitulation to the idea that our welfare must be commodified and commercialized so it is functional to selling ourselves, in order for us to have the means to continue looking after our welfare. Has the market mentality become so omnipotent that we must now conceive of public goals in terms of marketing?

Responsible competitiveness is not a sufficient conceptual framework for government action on business-society relations, and could greenwash globalization. Rather than the wellbeing of humanity being pursued only through market logics, another approach is required: one that recognizes how a global market requires global rules on matters of human dignity and welfare. Just as some companies no longer assert that their social responsibility is helping them to compete, and are beginning to call for government regulation, so governments need to recognize the dilemma posed by competitiveness pressures, and work towards more effective intergovernmental regulation.

Whatever one’s perspective on the global economy in general, and responsible competitiveness in particular, this discussion highlights that the field of corporate citizenship is a political one. As a site of what sociologist Ulrich Beck calls ‘sub politics’ the debates and initiatives in this field constitute a battleground of ideas that is shaping the ideology of our time. Some professionals that work in this field may understand these political processes and engage to counter the historical forces of capital, race and gender that shape the current hegemonic view. Whether their efforts are counter-hegemonic depends on the effects of their work as much as their motivations. Other professionals may not be so aware and act as channels for the re-production of hegemonic discourse. In explaining their rationale for responsible competitiveness, AccountAbility appeals to those with power by pointing to threats to their hegemony, identifying as “two risks”: “corporate responsibility being discredited for delivering too little” and “the drive for international competitiveness being challenged for creating unacceptable negative externalities.”209 On paper, therefore, the authors of the AccountAbility report act in defense of hegemony. Whether this is the personal intention, or will prove to be the effect, is in question. Many professionals engaged in corporate responsibility are seeking to engage with the centres and flows of power in society to direct them towards progressive outcomes. This raises the question of whether a progressive outcome necessarily involves reducing that power, or whether a more responsible, perhaps more ‘authentic’ or ‘civil’ exercise of power is possible. The goal of ‘transcending leadership’ discussed at different points during this annual review requires actualizing this more responsible form of power. Understanding power and its responsible use is probably the bedrock question underlying much work on corporate citizenship today.

contents © Greenleaf Publishing, apart from the Introduction © jem bendell, 2006. site by waywardmedia.com