Department of Information and Corporate Social Responsibility

In recent years, gained the anti-globalization movement (including those who oppose globalization) some steam.
And called a lot of people in the movement now promote corporate social responsibility (CSR), and the idea that companies should be responsible for the whole society and the environment, as well as shareholders.

It's a shame they have grown. After all, without modern corporations, we will all be poorer, and in particular, a few of us can expect to live a comfortable retirement. More than anything else, and modern companies used to provide retirement income.

Of course, companies that used to be the property of the people, and a few very rich. But with the widespread adoption of pension funds and investment funds and companies mostly belong to now working people.

While it is true that the average person has worked until now, much lower than the average billionaire wealth, and there are many times more people working. This means that the retirement plans business and government can invest huge amounts of money into equity, which makes the working-class people the largest shareholders in many companies.

From the standpoint of communication, and I'm interested in knowing why corporate social responsibility such as getting good media coverage and a lot of attention. I am also interested to know what we are, and communications, can learn from them.

For starters, the anti-globalization movement has a simple message: "Companies have a lot of money and power, and the people who work do not have enough," or a variation on this theme. On the other hand, defensive companies above is anything but simple, even if I'm good enough to pick up ideas into words. Not your eyes glaze as you read more of my class?

And "against" movement also has the luxury of an argument (the working poor) against good (rich societies) bad. It is a moral argument, and one that adds spice to any story. On the other hand, the "pro" side works mainly with rational discourse and economic ideas.

Third, bringing passion to the protesters against corporate message. After all, it is a battle of good against evil, is not it? Once again, must be based on defenders of modern societies and globalization aware prosaic economists.

Fourth, the label "corporate social responsibility" also allows the anti-globalization movement. Just do not work as unifying point for advocates, but it also means that corporate social responsibility is a good thing. After all, could be against those who "social" and "responsibility"?

Now, despite the media and high visibility and presence everywhere, supporters of corporate social responsibility to have a problem. They may be able to get the attention of journalists and editors, but did not have a lot of weight with the real decision-makers, and the people who run companies and pension and mutual funds.

And policy-makers are unlikely to be affected. They include the role of companies, and they know where their responsibilities. Even popular sympathy for the big CSR is not likely to have a significant impact, because it is accountable to the shareholders and not to society as a whole.

So, perhaps the last lesson, we will take the anti-globalization movement today is that in some cases, it can take only major communications so far in itself.