Josep F. Mària. A veces podemos pensar que la responsabilidad social es algo que se aplica a las empresas, y que la función de las ONG, especialmente las dedicadas al «lobby político o económico» es exigir a los gobiernos o a las empresas que sean responsables.

Pero hay situaciones que ponen de relieve también la necesidad de las ONG de ser ellas mismas responsables. El «caso» que acompañamos describe una de estas situaciones. Es un texto controvertido, pero presenta un problema real. Y muestra que los responsables de RSC de las empresas viven una tensión – que a veces es muy fuerte- entre las estrategias de la empresa y las estrategias de las ONG que trabajan por causas sociales en que la empresa está implicada.

Quizá dos enseñanzas de este caso son:

a) la importancia por parte de cada uno de los actores sociales implicados en una situación conflictiva de no creerse «los buenos» o «los que tienen la razón».

b) la necesidad de analizar las situaciones en toda su complejidad, y de pactar entre todos soluciones que a veces piden tiempo y comprometen los propios éxitos organizativos a corto plazo.

The Risk of Advocacy Self-Defeat: Perspectives of CSR managers[1]

The Corporate Social Responsibility managers of some of the leading electronics brands explained their experiences with pressure group advocacy on the issue of minerals and conflict in Eastern DRC in the following way:

“Imagine you are the CSR manager of a company that sells billions of dollars worth of electronic goods and you know you have customers with a conscience. One day NGO representatives come into your office and tell you that your product may contain conflict minerals. The next morning you realize that the same NGO has started to talk to your customer through the press. The next afternoon your sales manager tells you about a call from a sales representative, who was asked whether it was true that the product was fuelling conflict.

“You don’t know what to answer. You don’t know Eastern DRC, the region the NGO is talking about, because your company doesn’t source minerals directly. Unfortunately that also means you cannot rule out any negative externalities of the trade. In the meantime your PR department is going ballistic, because your brand name and the word conflict are too often printed and mentioned in the same sentence. The next morning you gather your troops in a meeting room and a response is internally identified: we will urge our suppliers not to source from Eastern DRC; we will try to put as much distance between our valuable brand and this conflict issue on the ground. The next day a representative from the government development agency is in your office. He explains the issue from a development perspective and suggests that the minerals are not only associated with conflict, but also with livelihoods and basic survival. The suggestion is that instead of withdrawing from the trade, you should help to reform it. This is unknown territory for you, but given that your company subscribes to a triple bottom line approach, you agree to a dialogue. You speak to the CEOs of your competitors and you collectively agree to start your own industry wide research into the subject. You are aware that a development process takes some time, but you are willing to take the risk, so long as it is acknowledged that you are actively trying to contribute to a solution.

Then the train hits the wall.

NGO campaigns start that hold your brand responsible for conflict and rape. Another pressure group report openly suggests very stringent measure that could apply to companies and individuals found to be purchasing from the region, such as prosecution by the International Criminal Court or being reprimanded by your home governments. At the same time your sales representative keeps calling your sales manager about a response to the question about your brand, conflict and rape. The government development agency representative calls you the next day to ask you about the extent that you can commit to a reform process. You remind him that you are the CSR manager of one of the best known brands in the world, but that this is an industry wide problem. You say to him that you have not decided yet, whether you want to commit the brand. Instead you refer him to the industry representative body.

The next morning you gather your troops in the meeting room: You decide to urge your suppliers to completely withdraw from Eastern DRC; you will put as much distance between your valuable brand and this conflict issue on the ground. The risk of getting burned by the pressure groups is too high to commit your brand to support a reform process.

Mitchell, H. Garret, N.: 2009, Beyond Conflict: Reconfiguring approaches to the regional trade in minerals from Eastern DRC Communities and Small Scale Mining, London, September 1. http://www.crisisstates.com/download/drc/Beyond%20Conflict.pdf (accessed March 23, 2010), p.48


[1] A composite presentation based on a series of interviews with CSR managers of electronics company, May-July 2009.

¿TE GUSTA LO QUE HAS LEÍDO?
Para continuar haciendo posible nuestra labor de reflexión, necesitamos tu apoyo.
Con tan solo 1,5 € al mes haces posible este espacio.
Jesuita. Doctor en Economía (UB). Licenciado en Teología (FTC). Profesor de Análisis Social, Ética y Religiones del Mundo en ESADE. Miembro de Cristianisme i Justícia. Patrono de la Fundación IQS y miembro del Consejo Superior de la Universidad de Comillas. Estudia sobre valores y educación superior, en particular desde la tradición jesuita. Colabora regularmente en la web www.pregaria.cat (apartado Prega/Al cor del món).
Artículo anteriorCerrado por reformas
Artículo siguienteRomper con el mito del desarrollo

1 COMENTARIO

  1. Muy interesante el artículo, está claro que estos temas de RSC no son blancos o negros. Supongo que lo ideal es que empresas, gobiernos y ONG trabajen conjuntamente y con unos objetivos que vayan más allá de unos resultados trimestrales, unas elecciones o una determinada campaña.

DEJA UN COMENTARIO

Por favor ingresa tu comentario!
Please enter your name here