Home Log In or Register Forums

Question:

'Question:'
Page: [1]
online_again's user image
online_again
17.09.2003 - 16:37

If all the bad corporations hired people to clean up for them, i.e hired someone to plant new trees where old were chopped down, and hired someone to clean up the oil they spilled in St.Paulinia... would that indirectly be a corporate responsible action? And if so, wouldn't that again lead to more economic growth as it would give more room for corporations to rise? And if that is possible, then why is CSR rejected on the arguement that it will slow down economy?

I know I am just waffling, but just an impulsive combination of Marxist economy and excess of caffein.
richard's user image
richard
18.09.2003 - 08:05
forum administrator
I think it would be a responsible action, but paying lots of people simply to clean up mess would probably be considered a waste(!) of money. But yes, it would be good for the economy in general... more people in work earning money means more people with money to spend.
nelson's user image
nelson
18.09.2003 - 09:45
forum administrator
You're both thinking long-term. It is a logical, beneficial, and altogether better idea, but most businesses (and countries) don't do things for long-term.

Hence global warming, poverty, end of Humanity, etc.
online_again's user image
online_again
18.09.2003 - 10:33
I know, but more and more corporations are forced to take some kind of ethical stance. For example, NIke is far from perfect, but they have improved, they have been forced to.

Nestle hasn't, and their chocolate sales has been going terrible down hill over the last years.

Lush, with their vegan(!) products are getting more and more popular.

In fact, there is quite a few factors pointing towards CSR being a good factor in competition as well; partly why fair trafe food is becoming more and more accessible.
deathjester's user image
deathjester
19.09.2003 - 12:32
forum administrator
Nestle are actually seeing a sales hit?

Is this a confirmed result of negative public opinion? The cynic in me says 'dj its pretty doubtful'.

Be nice to think otherwise though i s'pose
online_again's user image
online_again
19.09.2003 - 16:18
I don't know exactly why their sales are down, but as a part of my degree last year we had to take a look on the chocolate industry... and nestle's revenue on the chocolate front hasn't looked too good lately, whatever reason there is behind it. The fact that students unions all over this country and other countries refuse to sell Kit Kats (and other nestle chocoloates) is definately not the only reason, but it does help.
richard's user image
richard
19.09.2003 - 16:38
forum administrator
I'll tell you why: their chocolate is naff and uninteresting.
deathjester's user image
deathjester
19.09.2003 - 17:07
forum administrator
plus they took this piss BADLY when they picked a WHITE guy to advertise CHOCOLATE.

lmfao

which came first- YOU decide...
Page: [1]

You must log in to post messages on this board. If you don't have a username and password, you can register quickly to get them!

contact us © 2003, 2004 BurningHorizons.net