A blog about Business Ethics by Chris MacDonald, PhD
Encyclopedia of Business Ethics
Walmart, CSR Reporting, and Moral Grey Zones
Filed under: accountability, CSR, reporting, transparency, values |
It's very hard to report on the good things you've done, when not everyone is sure that those things are actually good. Cutting CO2 emissions is pretty unambiguously good, as is working to reduce fire hazards in your suppliers' factories. But in the realm of corporate responsibility reporting, there's still lots of room for controversy.
Case in point: I recently had the chance to indulge in a careful reading of Walmart Canada's 2011 Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Here's a bit from the document's intro, by CEO David Cheesewright:
We see this report as a powerful tool for corporate good. Our size gives us considerable influence and with it comes considerable responsibility – a role we embrace in order to help Canadians save money and live better.
Our goal is to present an open look into the impact of our operations in Canada over the past year. This latest report frames our diverse activities into four broad categories of CSR: Environment, People, Ethical Sourcing and Community.
In each area, we highlight our efforts and actions, both large and small – and summarize our current programs and challenges while outlining plans to keep improving in the future….
It's a very readable 35-page document (more reader-friendly than some others I've read, which I think is really crucial if you want people actually to read the thing.)
One of the things that struck me about the Report is that there's a genuine difficulty in reporting on this sort of stuff in a world replete with grey areas. There's lots of lovely win-win stuff in the Report. But some of the stuff reported proudly is actually ethically controversial. A trio of examples will illustrate my point.
Under the heading of "Community," Walmart Canada proudly reports that "Walmart Canada thinks locally," and that the retail giant does a lot to boost the prospects of Canadian businesses, to whom it funnelled just over $15 billion in 2010. This goes some distance toward countering a common criticism. But as I've pointed out here before, a focus on "supporting Canadian business" is often a mistake, both economically and ethically.
Likewise, the Report indicates that their 'Standards for Suppliers' absolutely forbid the use of child labour. But there's a good argument to be made that in at least some desperate parts of the world, child labour is a sad necessity. An absolute prohibition can make some kids' lives worse.
The Report also brags about its new line of organic baby food, despite the fact that there's little clear evidence that organic foods are ethically better than other foods. The question is controversial, to say the least.
In all three cases, the company is portraying as 'socially responsible' something that, well, might or might not be, depending who you ask. But of course, child labour, healthy foods, and impact on local communities are precisely the sorts of things that critics (and maybe consumers more generally) want to hear about from Walmart. So it's hard to fault them on doing, and reporting on, those things.
The point here really is not about Walmart Canada, but about the challenges of CSR reporting more generally. If CSR reports stuck to the unambiguously-great stuff, the reports would be vanishingly short and only minimally useful. And that would be a shame. The point of such reporting, I think is not to show that you're doing everything right. It's to show us what you're doing.
« Why $100-million Is Too Much
Greed, Capitalism, and the Occupy Movement »
Jonathan Sundqvist (@ecologythinking) on November 4, 2011
Just a heads up on the organic food comment. Grist recently wrote about one article in Nature that took on the challenge of how to feed the world without ruining it.
Excerpt from Grist (http://www.grist.org/food/2011-10-31-seven-billion-mouths-to-feed) : "As the study notes, "only 10 percent of the world's croplands account for 32 percent of the global nitrogen surplus and 40 percent of the phosphorus surplus." According to Foley and his team:
… conventional approaches to intensive agriculture, especially the unbridled use of irrigation and fertilizers, have been major causes of environmental degradation. Closing yield gaps without environmental degradation will require new approaches, including reforming conventional agriculture and adopting lessons from organic systems and precision agriculture.
That's right, they used the "O" word. In fact, these scientists concluded that if we're to grow more with fewer resources and a smaller environmental and carbon footprint, we'll have to look not to high-tech solutions like genetic engineering but rather to:
agroecological innovations in crop and soil management [which] … show great promise for improving the resource efficiency of agriculture, maintaining the benefits of intensive agriculture while greatly reducing harm to the environment."
Thus, I would say that organic is definitely a good thing. It helps to increase your resilience against the peak phospurus that will eventually come.
But generally, yes, there are always grey zones. That's why we need to have an ongoing conversation in what direction we should be heading.
Chris MacDonald on November 4, 2011
Thanks for the link. But this is just one more volley in the back-and-forth debate over organics. And note that the word "organic" only appears once in the article, in a sentence that says only that some "lessons" ought to be adopted from organic ag. This is far from knock-down support. No one group or report can ever do that.
Chris MacDonald, Ph.D., is an educator, speaker, and consultant in the realm of business ethics. He teaches at the Ted Rogers School of Management, at Ryerson University in Toronto, where he is Director of the Jim Pattison Ethical Leadership Education & Research Program, at the
Ted Rogers Leadership Centre.
Chris is former Interim Director of the Ted Rogers MBA at Ryerson.
He is also a Senior Fellow at Duke University's Kenan Institute for Ethics.
MacDonald is also co-author of the (free, online) Concise Encyclopedia of Business Ethics.
He is a "Most Viewed Writer" on Quora, for the topics Business Ethics, CSR, and Ethical Dilemmas.
Chris has three times been declared one of the "Top 100 Thought Leaders in Trustworthy Business Behavior", and has several times been named one of the 100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics.
He has been writing The Business Ethics Blog since November of 2005. The blog is now exclusively syndicated by Canadian Business magazine.
Business ethics professors say The Business Ethics Blog is...
"...the best thing that ever happened to Business Ethics courses...clear and intelligent presentation of the real ethical stakes behind the current headlines..."
[Prof. Wayne Norman, Duke University]
"...one of the best destinations on the web to send students for fascinating and timely analyses of cutting-edge issues ..."
[Prof. Laura Hartman, DePaul University]
Chris MacDonald is now Contributing Editor for Emtrain's Code of Conduct training course:
Why I'm Not Buying Nikes This Week
Let's Celebrate Business Integrity When We See It
Starbucks is trying to please everyone, and it's not going to work
The buck stops here: why leadership requires taking responsibility
Archives Select Month June 2019 (1) September 2018 (1) June 2018 (1) May 2018 (2) February 2018 (2) November 2017 (1) March 2017 (1) February 2017 (1) November 2016 (1) October 2016 (2) August 2016 (1) July 2016 (1) June 2016 (1) May 2016 (2) April 2016 (1) March 2016 (2) February 2016 (2) December 2015 (2) November 2015 (3) October 2015 (1) September 2015 (2) August 2015 (1) July 2015 (2) June 2015 (2) May 2015 (3) April 2015 (3) March 2015 (4) February 2015 (3) January 2015 (2) December 2014 (2) November 2014 (5) October 2014 (1) September 2014 (4) August 2014 (3) July 2014 (1) June 2014 (3) May 2014 (4) April 2014 (3) March 2014 (3) February 2014 (3) January 2014 (5) December 2013 (1) November 2013 (6) October 2013 (6) September 2013 (6) August 2013 (5) July 2013 (4) June 2013 (4) May 2013 (4) April 2013 (8) March 2013 (8) February 2013 (7) January 2013 (3) December 2012 (4) November 2012 (6) October 2012 (8) September 2012 (5) August 2012 (3) July 2012 (8) June 2012 (7) May 2012 (10) April 2012 (9) March 2012 (10) February 2012 (7) January 2012 (12) December 2011 (9) November 2011 (13) October 2011 (11) September 2011 (16) August 2011 (18) July 2011 (10) June 2011 (17) May 2011 (18) April 2011 (6) March 2011 (14) February 2011 (21) January 2011 (14) December 2010 (14) November 2010 (13) October 2010 (15) September 2010 (13) August 2010 (11) July 2010 (6) June 2010 (11) May 2010 (9) April 2010 (11) March 2010 (11) February 2010 (11) January 2010 (14) December 2009 (5) November 2009 (3) October 2009 (5) September 2009 (7) August 2009 (14) July 2009 (12) June 2009 (11) May 2009 (11) April 2009 (20) March 2009 (27) February 2009 (24) January 2009 (30) December 2008 (24) November 2008 (28) October 2008 (21) September 2008 (13) August 2008 (9) July 2008 (9) June 2008 (5) April 2008 (1) March 2008 (5) February 2008 (1) January 2008 (2) December 2007 (1) November 2007 (5) October 2007 (3) September 2007 (4) August 2007 (16) July 2007 (15) June 2007 (3) May 2007 (11) April 2007 (7) March 2007 (7) February 2007 (6) January 2007 (10) December 2006 (13) November 2006 (18) October 2006 (10) September 2006 (17) August 2006 (14) July 2006 (11) June 2006 (8) May 2006 (21) April 2006 (13) March 2006 (17) February 2006 (17) January 2006 (32) December 2005 (17) November 2005 (9)
About Chris MacDonald,Ph.D.
BusinessEthics.ca
Business Ethics Speakers Series
My Biotech Ethics Blog
My Food Ethics Blog
The Research Ethics Blog
Ethics of Complementary & Alternative Medicine
Other Business Ethics / CSR Blogs
Subscribe to e-mail notification of new postings.
Welcome, Students! (advice for students using this blog)
The EthicsWeb Bookstore
Chris MacDonald, Ethics Consultant
Business Ethics Highlights
Business Ethics Journal Review