Greener Management International invites contributions to a special
issue of the journal on the topic of:
‘Ecological Sustainability and CSR – Critical Perspectives and the
Lessons of History’
*********************************
INTRODUCTION
When a new century beckons, innovative thinkers respond. The roots of
ecology are thus broadly acknowledged to be found dangling their
fibrous ends in the dying years of the 18th century. When Alexander von
Humboldt (the long acknowledged ‘father of ecology’) departed on the
first of his many epoch making trips to Central and Southern America in
1799, he might already have had time to read a slim publication
entitled ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’. Assuming he
extended his sphere of interest to the emerging discipline of political
science, he would have detected distant echoes of ideas that were
beginning to take shape in his own mind, however dimly the recurring
conceptual pattern might have been discerned.
The author of the essay, one Thomas Robert Malthus, was himself
disputing views held by another philosopher and political economist,
the Marquis de Condorcet. In doing so, he gave such stark realisation
to the concept of a powerful relationship between the natural
environment and human beings, that the reverberations are still felt in
current thinking.
"The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to
produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or
other visit the human race "
Unfortunately, the innate pessimism of the findings obscured the
revelation of the relationship itself. Despite the breadth and, for the
most part, optimism of his contribution to the betterment of society,
Malthus had to endure the nickname ‘Pop’ (for ‘Population’) for the
rest of his life. However, others, such as von Humboldt, would
certainly have found succor in the validating expression of a theme
central to their own nascent ecological studies. If there is a
mathematical or statistical relationship between people and the earth,
then why not plants, their altitude and latitude, as he posited in
‘Idea for a Plant Geography’.
The rest, as they say, is History.
Yet if our understanding of ecology has moved from the mechanical, to
the biological, to the evolutionary and through to the quantum level,
what light can a historical perspective of other, currently competing,
concepts do for our attempts to ensure (our own and other) species’
survival?
If anything, a similarly historical view of Corporate Social
Responsibility offers a chance for reflection on the ability of
institutions to adopt similar intellectual concepts as foundation for
entirely different social outcomes. It is not difficult to trace the
evolutionary development of CSR from its earliest forms as realised by
Jacob Fugger II, (1459-1525) through to the benign but socially narrow
views of Andrew Carnegie (1835 – 1919); all this by way of Karl Marx,
Friedrich Engels, and (curiously) Adolph Hitler, who all adopted CSR in
a variety of styles and for a variety of larger ends. Beyond Carnegie,
the idea has been shaped by the fashions of economic theorists and
further dissected by the likes of Theodore Levitt and Milton Friedman.
Since the 1950’s, the CSR agenda was arguably swept aside by the
corporate environmental movement, which had its heyday of integration
between environmental and economic activities during and following the
Green Consumer boom of the mid 80s to the mid-90s. This then
idiosyncratically metamorphosed into first the sustainable development
movement and then the sustainability agenda in industrialized
countries.
From this perspective, CSR has over the last decade also resurfaced as
either the social dimension of the three-lobed Venn diagram of
Sustainable Development (SD), or as the practical exponent of SD in
corporations. So CSR is either part or driver (or both?) of SD, and
some authors have also argued it is part of the theoretical
underpinning of why companies should pursue SD. Hence there are
conflicting views, or at least epistemological ambivalence, of the
interaction between CSR and SD. Strangely, the reasons put forward as
to why companies should pursue SD are quite similar to the reasons used
in the 1950s-1970s to engage companies in the pursuit of CSR (or
Business Ethics, as it was better known then).
In support of this move, the central argument has been that CSR is not
a cost (Friedman) to the company, whose payment is ethically wrong
(Levitt), but is an investment into the long-term competitiveness and
image management of the company, thus maximizing returns. Yet such
‘corporate enlightened self-interest’ (Mintzberg) essentially
reinforces that the CSR, like environment before its latest
integration, is only to be valued in so far as it can be made to bear a
return. Yet, the management of non-financial risk makes little
distinction between reputation and the air we breathe.
So what does all this tell us about our current situation?
It seems that unlike ecology, (which started out as an idea with
political implications but was taken much further by biologists and
other natural sciences), CSR has remained true to its earliest roots
and has never wandered far from the shelter of political science. Does
this make it incompatible with the aims of sustaining ecological
integrity? Does it contribute to furthering ecological aims, or is it
simply a cloak for maintaining the status quo?
* COVERAGE
Against the historical background of both these concepts (which to the
casual observer may not have effected that much change given current
circumstances) and given the diversity of historical contributors, the
aim of this special issue is to understand and critically evaluate
CSR’s contribution to ecological sustainability.
Typical questions may include, but are not limited to:
* In ecological terms, what is the justification for CSR - is it based
on ethical values, is it part of an economic or social framework, is it
driven by substantive or instrumental reasons?
* What is the role of corporations in modern, consumerist society? What
are the limits to what society should expect companies to contribute,
and why?
* What has been the critical experience with CSR standards, such as the
Global Compact? Do they work with EMSs or are they simply a
distraction?
* Does CSR appeal to Board level management more than environmental
issues? If so, why and is it a problem?
* Case studies of conversions from “non-CSR” to “CSR-driven” companies
and vice versa. What happened to the environment in such cases?
* The role of CSR in developing countries, especially where
environmental and SD agendas are very different to those in Western
countries and may not have yet become well established.
* How successful has CSR been and why? How do we define success here?
* Is CSR the soft focus equivalent of ‘economic redistribution’?
Post-modernist Marxism with Vaseline on the lens?
* Has CSR become divorced from broader ethical discourse and if so, how?
* Does CSR explore the limits of ‘collective responsibility’ or does it
simply obscure an individual’s requirements to maintain a moral code?
* Is the existence of CSR a sign of the conceptual failure of
sustainable development?
The above list is by no means exhaustive, and contributions on other
relevant topics will also be considered. Both qualitative and
quantitative approaches are welcome. The special edition is an attempt
to develop a critical but constructive understanding of this field, and
as such welcomes submissions based on a variety of approaches, be they
reflective, empirical, practical or applied theoretical work.
* CONTRIBUTIONS
Academics submitting material should clearly state how the theory and
concepts developed in their work influences managerial practice. Given
the intended practical nature of these publications, contributions from
practitioners in businesses, NGOs and government are also very welcome.
Theoretical papers should be between 4,000 and 6,000 words and case
studies between 2,500 and 4,000 words in length. The paper submissions
should follow editorial guidelines, which can be obtained from
Greenleaf Publishing (see below).
* SCHEDULE
The submission deadline for initial expressions of interest in the form
of abstracts of approximately 300 words is July 15th, 2006. Abstracts
should ideally be sent as e-mail attachments to both Guest Editors for
the review process (see "Contact Details" at the end of this Call).
A selection process will then be put into motion. Contributors whose
abstracts are felt appropriate for the Theme issue will then be asked
to submit full papers by November 2nd, 2006. Contributors will be
informed of the acceptance of their contributions or be invited to
submit final revised papers by January 11th, 2007. It is intended that
the special issue of "Greener Management International" will be
published in April 2007.
* CONTACT DETAILS
For further information, to discuss ideas for contributions and to
submit abstracts/manuscripts, please contact the Guest Editors:
Chris Sheldon
Principal
Green Inck
www.greeninck.co.uk
E:
greeninck@btconnect.com
T: +44 (0) 1202 432 388
Dr. Walter Wehrmeyer
Centre for Environmental Strategy
University of Surrey
Guildford
Surrey GU2 7XH
E:
W.Wehrmeyer@surrey.ac.uk
F: +44 / 1483 / 686 671
T: +44 / 1483 / 689 075
Skype: wwehrmeyer
_______________________________________________________________________
To send a message to the list, send your email to
SIM@aomlists.pace.edu
_______________________________________________________________________
Visit the SIM Division website at:
www.simdivision.org
_______________________________________________________________________
If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at:
http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1