Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why Corporate Social Responsibility Programs are a Fraud

Anti-sweatshop activist Jeffrey Ballinger says that corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs such as codes of conduct for contractors are undermining worker rights.

Ten years ago, Ballinger and his group Press for Change led the charge against Nike’s mistreatment of workers in southeast Asia.

The anti-sweatshop movement had Nike and the shoe industry on the run.

Ballinger said that by co-opting public interest groups and with deft application of CSR, Nike and multinational sporting goods companies won the public relations battle.

Ballinger says that by spending on CSR, Nike and the other large retailers are able to appear socially responsible, instead of actually being socially responsible.

“The CSR cost for Nike is about $10 million to $12 million a year, just for the CSR staff and expenses, to go to these sustainability meetings all over the world,” Ballinger told CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER. “They have two or three Nike people at every meeting. That’s part of the CSR game.”

“I figure 75 cents per pair of shoes to the worker would fix the problem,” Ballinger said. “If Nike instead paid workers 75 cents more per pair of shoes, do you know what that would cost Nike compared to the CSR cost? That would cost them $210 million a year.”

Ballinger says that industry critics like Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange played into the hands of Nike and helped deflate the anti-sweatshop movement.

“We would have a conference call every three or four weeks,” Ballinger said. “And at one of these, in about 1997 or so, Medea Benjamin from Global Exchange let it slip that she was talking to Nike. I said ­ what do you mean you are talking to Nike? We have workers fired in Indonesia. You don’t talk to a company until first they have agreed to get that contractor to rehire these 30 workers at one factory and 18 factories at another factory. The military would give a list to the factory manager telling him who the troublemakers are. And I said to Medea ­ you just don’t go and talk to Nike. But she was unmoved. And it was after she talked to Nike, that other activists started talking to Nike. But Medea opened the door. She was the point person in the United States, getting all of the attention. And she sent the signal ­ if I can talk to Nike, you can talk with Nike too.”

Ballinger says that activists won round one ten years ago against Nike and the other apparel makers. They have lost round two, with companies winning the public relations battle, getting Americas to believe, through CSR that they are doing the right thing.

“Round three would be exposing the fraud of CSR,” Ballinger said. “And getting back into another kind of game where we are saying ­ we don’t want self-regulation. We want to know what the governments are doing and why are these companies are in the most lawless places on earth? We want you to document that and put it on your web site.”

Ballinger said he was often vilified by other activists for taking a strong stance against sweatshops.

“I cannot tell you how often I have heard ­ don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” Ballinger said. “The perfect invariably meant worker empowerment, the good was usually a corporate self-regulation scheme. What is wrong with being uncompromising? I thought that it was good to be uncompromising. Certainly, businesses say that they are uncompromising when it comes to quality. Activists should be able to say ­ we won’t compromise on a living wage or collective bargaining, where a union has won majority support among workers, shouldn’t they?”

“I recall being accused of trying to split the movement because I objected to anti-sweat groups touting a new ­ vague and unenforceable ­ initiative that big brands like Reebok were only too happy to sign on to. Much favorable publicity for the corporations followed, of course. Naysayers were marginalized as extremists,” Ballinger said.

[For a complete transcript of the Interview with Jeffrey Ballinger, see 21 CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER 22, May 28, 2007, print edition only.]

CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER is located in Washington, DC. They can be reached through their website

 

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
Sam Husseini
The Most Strategic Midterm Race: Elder Challenges Hoyer
Maria Foscarinis – John Tharp
The Criminalization of Homelessness
Robert Fisk
The Story of the Armenian Legion: a Dark Tale of Anger and Revenge
Jacques R. Pauwels
Dinner With Marx in the House of the Swan
Dave Lindorff
US ‘Outrage’ over Slaying of US Residents Depends on the Nation Responsible
Ricardo Vaz
How Many Yemenis is a DC Pundit Worth?
Elliot Sperber
Build More Gardens, Phase out Cars
Chris Gilbert
In the Wake of Nepal’s Incomplete Revolution: Dispatch by a Far-Flung Bolivarian 
Muhammad Othman
Let Us Bray
Gerry Brown
Are Chinese Municipal $6 Trillion (40 Trillion Yuan) Hidden Debts Posing Titanic Risks?
Rev. William Alberts
Judge Kavanaugh’s Defenders Doth Protest Too Much
Ralph Nader
Unmasking Phony Values Campaigns by the Corporatists
Victor Grossman
A Big Rally and a Bavarian Vote
James Bovard
Groped at the Airport: Congress Must End TSA’s Sexual Assaults on Women
Jeff Roby
Florida After Hurricane Michael: the Sad State of the Unheeded Planner
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Bradley Kaye
The Policy of Policing
Wim Laven
The Catholic Church Fails Sexual Abuse Victims
Kevin Cashman
One Year After Hurricane Maria: Employment in Puerto Rico is Down by 26,000
Dr. Hakim Young
Nonviolent Afghans Bring a Breath of Fresh Air
Karl Grossman
Irving Like vs. Big Nuke
Dan Corjescu
The New Politics of Climate Change
John Carter
The Plight of the Pyrenees: the Abandoned Guard Dogs of the West
Ted Rall
Brett Kavanaugh and the Politics of Emotion-Shaming
Graham Peebles
Sharing is Key to a New Economic and Democratic Order
Ed Rampell
The Advocates
Louis Proyect
The Education Business
David Yearsley
Shock-and-Awe Inside Oracle Arena
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail