PROOF

Contents

List of Figure and Tables vii

Acknowledgements viii

Notes on the Contributors ix

1 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility 1 K. Ravi Raman

2 Corporate Social Responsibility in the Era of Capitalist Globalization 25 Leslie Sklair

3 Opportunities and Limits of Corporate Support for Voluntary Activity in Canada: Evidence from Voluntary Organizations 42 Paul Bowles and Fiona MacPhail

4 Indigenous and NGO Alliances Confronting Corporate and State Alliances: The Case of Jabiluka Uranium Prospect 60 Katherine Trebeck

5 Romania, Ltd – A Study of Irresponsible Conduct in Human Resources 81 Camelia Crisan

6 Extractive Industries and Stunted States: Conflict, Responsibility and Institutional Change in the Andes 97 Anthony Bebbington

7 From Corporate Accountability to Shared Responsibility: Dealing with Pollution in a Peruvian Smelter Town 116 Fabiana Li

v PROOF vi Contents

8 Beyond Bureaucracies? The Struggle for Self-Determination and Social Responsibility in the Argentine Workers’ Cooperatives 130 Alice Bryer

9 Business for Peace, or Peace for Business? The Role of Corporate Peace Activism in the Rise and Fall of Sri Lanka’s 2001–2004 Peace Process 148 Rajesh Venugopal

10 Commercial Microfinance in India: Loan Angels or Sharks? 165 D. Ajit and K. Ravi Raman

11 Corporate Social Responsibility, Local Livelihood and Human Rights: The Case of Coca-Cola in India 182 K. Ravi Raman

12 Land Acquisition: Impossibility of Corporate Social Responsibility 201 Pranab Kanti Basu

13 Shifting Terrain of Ethical Trade: Corporate and Civil Society Engagement in South African Agriculture 219 Stephanie Barrientos and Andrienetta Kritzinger

14 Corporate Social Responsibility and the Problem of Human Rights: Who is Protecting Whom? 242 Ronnie D. Lipschutz

Index 267 PROOF

1 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility

K. Ravi Raman

Introduction

During the current phase of neoliberal globalization, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has generated a great deal of discussion and debate, both as a conceptual framework and as an apparently fresh facet of cor- porate culture, with a particular focus on business ethics, social and environmental sustainability, and human rights. While the corporate world is increasingly seen by many to be articulating its regard for social responsibility, critics see the rise of CSR as more myth than reality, and acolytes of the free market condemn even limited efforts toward more responsible corporate practices. In response to both acco- lades and attacks, socially-concerned scholars across disciplines have begun to study more closely corporate-society relations and the associ- ated CSR, including its conceptualization and ethnographic verification in various countries. Academia has also begun to address the chal- lenges faced by CSR through studies of mining and water extraction in the global south, the activities of seed multinationals in France and India and energy corporations in the West and in the Asian countries wherein the nature and scope of CSR are analysed, explored and often contested. However, to date, there has been little effort to generate a critical body of literature addressing the interdisciplinary dimensions of CSR, partic- ularly in terms of its multicultural and multi-ethnic practices. Moreover, no systematic effort has been made to engage in collective discussions about the complex interconnectedness of the various political-economic and socio-cultural domains involved in these experiences, the very dis- tinct departures from the ideal as observed on many an occasion, or the contrasting visions and contradictions manifest in this otherwise

1 PROOF

2 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility appealing principle. The need to bring together scholars working on CSR in various domains to discuss and debate its past and present dimen- sions is thus clear; each such assembly of scholarly opinion represents another step towards a fresh understanding of the emerging concerns and the construction of an ethically viable CSR agenda, one that would eschew the scourge of social inequity. Yet another justification for such work is the necessity of examining CSR from innovative methodological perspectives and ideological backgrounds, not from a purely economic or political angle, but rather through ethnographies, geographies of power relations, historical ethnographic enquires and so on. The present volume is a collection of 14 chapters contributed by internationally-renowned scholars on the discourses, practices and per- spectives on CSR ranging across a wide spectrum of multicultural, multi-ethnic and cross-country experiences. The chapters presented here explore both the theoretical engagements of CSR and its practical experiences through a large number of case studies across the con- tinents. The theoretical issues addressed in the chapters include the question of the crisis of legitimization, corporate-led globalization and the formation of oligarchic state structures as well as primitive accu- mulation, the power of discourse as a camouflage for actual intentions and the reality of capital-labour/community contradictions. Through a large number of case studies, the authors have explored how corpo- rate capital permeates various multicultural environments across Asia, Africa and Latin America besides the advanced countries like Canada and Australia. This collection of chapters also includes studies on anti- corporate movements, corporate–community relations, and conflicts in which the micro-physics of power creates its own macro-political effects. All the chapters are original studies, each of which provides a fresh insights into the emerging theme of corporate social responsi- bility and offers a critical response to the recent concerns with respect to CSR.

Varieties of capitalism, violence and CSR

Capitalism, which itself was born of violence as Marx would argue, is the ‘midwife’ of radically transformed social relations [or relations of pro- duction] and necessarily operates through the state,1 and more so now in the current phase of corporate-led globalization, when the state and corporate capital often join hands to privatize the public space simul- taneously generating ‘varieties of capitalism’ (Hall and Soskice 2001; also see Coates 2005; Goldstein 2007), corporate-state violence and CSR. Although the global economy had been showing signs of an impending PROOF

K. Ravi Raman 3 recession, there was a resurgence of world capitalism as reflected in the massive increase in global foreign direct investment flows which after four consecutive years of growth, rose in 2007 by 30 per cent to reach an all-time high of 1.83 trillion US dollars, well above the previous level attained in 2000.2 The United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), France, Germany and Spain were the largest outward investors, recording FDI outflows of more than 100 billion US dollars each and contributing 64 per cent of the total outward FDI of the developed West. But the multinationals from the developing countries, particularly the East Asian newly industrialized countries and Russia were also increas- ingly tapping in on Western markets and thereby intensifying varieties of capitalism across continents (see Goldstein 2007; van Agtmael 2007). The increased corporate intensity, particularly in terms of ‘financialisa- tion’ and the bubble-bursting ‘stock market Keynesianism’ (see Brenner 2002, 2004), with its persistent control over the ‘internationalisation of production’ (See Fine, Lapavitsas and Milonakis) sphere is a reflection of neoliberal rationality in which all forms of exploitation, repression and corporate violence are embedded. However, what is strikingly obvious is the fact that there is also a simultaneous intensification of anti- corporate, anti-globalization movements challenging not only the cor- porate units at ground level but often the representative institutions of global capitalism as symbolized by GATT/WTO and the World Bank/IMF (Arrighi, Hopkins and Wallerstein, 1989; Melucci, 1989; Escobar and Alvarez 1992, 1998; Porta and Dianni, 1999; Buttel and Gould 2004; Richter 2001). The corporate world, on its part, has been making an effort to project its commitment to social responsibility, both as a mechanism to mini- mize the resistance to their way of doing business as well as to maintain profitability. As capital turned its attention towards the rather new prac- tice of CSR, though with the old ingredients of corporate philanthropy critics viewed this as merely another strategy developed by corporate capital which is, in the final analysis, interested in accumulation alone (Jones 1996; also see De George 1996; Sklair 2001; Utting 2002; Roberts 2003; Mah 2004; Christian Aid 2004; Lipschutz and Rowe 2005; Raman 2007a). Ironically, this critical point of view is shared by the advocates of absolute market freedom as a social good, such as Milton Friedman (1988), who argued that corporate managers should be legally restrained from deviating from their proper role of maximizing shareholder value (also see Steinberg 2000). While such views constitute the ‘bad capi- talism school,’ there are also those who opine that ‘weak CSR is bad development’, that ‘capitalism can make hardly any CSR’ and see ‘CSR as nothing more than good capitalism and therefore not worth thinking PROOF

4 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility about in its own right’ as elaborated by the editors of the special issue of International Affairs on CSR in the developing world (Blowfield and Frynas 2005; Frynas 2005). Those who consider capitalism to be com- patible with human and environmental standards, and that along with making profits corporate capital is capable of doing public good, have faith in the Ethical Trading Initiative in the UK or the Fair Label Asso- ciation in the US and such other mainstream approaches to doing ‘fair’ business. Corporate capital makes huge efforts to market its own version of CSR and project its socially responsible behaviour – while Starbucks highlights its decision to purchase Fair Trade coffee, GlaxoSmithKline publicizes its donation of antiretroviral medications to Africa. Although this new-look corporate culture has attracted much debate, particularly with regard to business ethics, social and environmental sustainability, as well as human rights, the exact nature of CSR remains elusive for not a day passes without corporate violence being perpetrated by those who wear the mask of social responsibility. We need to go further back in time to explore the origins of CSR in order to understand why particular ideological notions such as these emerged and took hold at particular historical junctures. Two major developments deserve attention when discussing the genesis of CSR as an organized body of knowledge and practice. Firstly, it was dur- ing the late 1960s that the US-based corporate businesses operating in South Africa were first challenged by the denominations of the protes- tant church and students arguing for socially responsible investment (Morano 1982; Massie 1997). By 1972, the United Nations (UN) too was drawn into the debate, eventually leading to a consensus on the desired code of conduct for multinationals, particularly with respect to South Africa (Feld 1980; also see Seidman 2003). These events also coin- cided with a slowing down of the economic activity associated with the ‘golden age of capitalism’ in the entire West.3 From the standpoint of CSR, what had existed until then could at best be termed corporate philanthropy, the origins of which could be traced to the inception of ‘monopoly capitalism’ itself, namely, the stage of capitalism domi- nated by large corporations that had originated in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and reached maturity about the time of the Second World War. Capitalist philanthropy took various forms such as giving away a percentage of profits to charity, the provision of housing, health, education and transport facilities for the workers and other social secu- rity measures. However, the motives behind such philanthropy had often been exposed and attributed to nothing more than capitalist ratio- nality or corporate liberalism itself. Providing housing closer to the PROOF

K. Ravi Raman 5 factory and arranging transport to the workplace for instance, made it easier to control the workers and helped increase their productivity and efficiency (see Kakabadse, Kakabadse and Rozuel 2006; Kakabadse and Morsing 2006). Genuinely pro-labour policies, whether at the state or at the international level, were the subject of criticism by this very cor- porate capital and extended to an opposition against long-term social security measures, particularly in the first half of the last century. It implies that corporate liberalism was limited by its own objectives, operated on its own terms and followed its own strategies. However, forced with a sluggish economy and the end of an era of high profits and employment in the early 1970s, corporate capital required buffering strategies to neutralize its losses and restore profitabil- ity thereby re-establishing its hegemony, power and supremacy. It thus began to frame discursive and non-discursive strategies, the latter in the material and organizational domains generating the conditions for post-Fordist and neo-liberal reforms, with massive downsizing of labour, cutting of wages, reformulation of the conditions of labour, intro- duction of high-tech innovations and the overexploitation of natural resources. The apparently ceaseless accumulation that followed was not, however, without consequences. The unethical practices behind such accumulation soon came to light, particularly the corporate greed that drove the solicitous promotional measures for infant formula adopted by Nestlé in developing countries, which contributed to malnutrition and even the death of infants, and numerous other human rights vio- lations perpetrated by multinational companies (Smith 1981)4;alarge number of corporate–community conflicts erupted in the mining and oil extraction belts of Latin America and Asia (see Moffat and Linden 1995; Obiora 1999; Okonta and Douglas 2001; also see Utting 2002; Marina Prieto-Carron et al. 2006; Idemudia and E.Ite 2006; Sawyer and Gomez 2008) as some of the studies in this volume also explain. While questions and concerns have been raised in relation to the activities of corporations in Latin America, South Africa and Asia, the latter are increasingly being brought to book in the advanced countries as well, including the US, and many countries of Europe. Case stud- ies from across the world reiterate the fact that corporate–civil society relations have been steadily deteriorating. In fact, the term ‘Corporate Irresponsibility’ has come to hold sway among concerned academics, having become America’s prime ‘new export’ to the rest of the world (Mitchell 2001). Although the process of globalization has also opened up vast opportunities for the multinationals from the global south – foreign direct investment outflow from developing countries having PROOF

6 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility increased from a mere 5.2 per cent in 1990 to 14. 2 per cent in 2006 – it remains to be seen whether these MultiNational Companies (MNCs) with their poor record of CSR would modify their behaviour following mergers and acquisitions in the developed world. With the bourgeoning of south–south trade and trade with western counterparts that mark the ‘emerging market century’ (van Agtmael 2007; also see Goldstein 2007), the MNCs from developing countries remain incognisant of the tenets of CSR or practise a form of CSR far below any measurable standards. Often CSR also takes the form of new means of corporate governmen- tality, an object of intervention, with the idea of legitimizing the way in which corporate capital does business. Of late, many companies such as Nestlé and Rio Tinto5 have adopted well laid out charters to gov- ern their social responsibility and behaviour, but more often than not, these remain on paper validating how CSR in practice deviates from that in principle. Similarly, Wal-Mart makes strong claims to an improved employer ethics and better working conditions, especially for people of colour; however, the reduced prices on consumer items have been achieved through a cutting of production and staff costs, employing child labour and practising discrimination against women particularly outside the US.6 Dow Chemical, which itself has a dubious history, took over Union Carbide which was responsible for the Bhopal gas tragedy; but rather than attempting to compensate the victims for their suffering, it allocated millions towards its CSR campaign, ‘The Human Element’.7 The latest in the series of corporate duplicity is the case of Satyam Com- puters, now known as the ‘Enron of India’.8 Ironically enough, it is these very multinationals who receive awards for their ‘social commitment’.9 While the corporate world works hard to convince the world at large of its ‘honorable intentions’, the UN initiated the ‘Global Compact’ in July 2000 seeking to promote ‘responsible corporate citizenship’ with the goal to bring together corporations, UN agencies, labour and civil society, supportive of universal environmental and social principles, to work towards a ‘more sustainable and inclusive global economy’. Before and since then, many a corporate capital has formulated such principles and practices of CSR and joined hands with the UN in ‘partnership’.10

CSR: More on theory and discourse

The corporate presence makes itself felt in every aspect of modern day existence. The term colonization, as used by Habermas (1987), encom- passes the myriad processes through which the state, the market, the bureaucratic apparatus and so on infiltrate our lifeworld to carry out the dictates of an advanced capitalist system. In the current climate PROOF

K. Ravi Raman 7 of neo-liberalism, this translates into a centrality of corporate power both within our day-to-day existence as well as in the governance of the nation-state and beyond (see Jones 1996; Crossley 2003; Lipschutz and Rowe 2005; Richter 2001). In fact, corporate-led capitalism has now advanced to such a level that the nation-state is itself being corporatized and turned into an ‘instrumentality of oligarchic empires and corpora- tions’ (Kapferer 2005; also see Trouillot 2001; Kapferer 2002; also see Mason 1959; Bakan 2004), being ultimately left with minimal residual powers of regulation. On occasion, however, the state has been involved in efforts to regulate MNCs, such as Enron and other corporate capital in the US and elsewhere (see Gledhill 2004; Amour and McCahery 2006; Korten 1995), but only after the emergence of concrete evidence of cor- ruption and significant social protest, with, however, in most cases, the damage already being done. Yet, the new power of corporate capitalism, born of ideological shifts like ‘sustainable development’, ‘transparency’, ‘participation’, ‘social capital’ and so on, lends fresh legitimacy to new state orders and indeed highlights the necessity to engage with the question of yet another legitimizing discursive domain: corporate social responsibility/accountability. It is a new form of corporate governance that the practice of CSR brings. Foucault rejects the notion of language by itself as discourse, arguing that it is that which language represents – including norms, beliefs, prac- tices and effects – that truly constitutes discourse (Foucault 1980; 1991; Fairclough 2001; Ferguson 1990, 2005; Gledhill 1994; Gordon 1991; Escobar 1995; Grillo and Stirrat 1997). Thus Foucauldian discourse – CSR in this context – delineates a precise manner of thinking, speak- ing and practising which permits only a prescribed line of thought and action, to the exclusion of all other alternatives. The discourse which produces such knowledge is therefore integrated with power, inasmuch as no power relation can exist without the parallel construc- tion of a field of knowledge. Thus, corporate capitalists have generated a knowledge/discourse of CSR that establishes them as (corporate) citizens and implies a natural inclination towards ethics and social and envi- ronmental sustainability in addition to making profit. This discourse was constructed by the multinationals themselves – albeit with con- siderable assistance from agents in civil society – in defence against political-ideological attacks and to help them work around the ‘crisis of legitimation’ that formed a part of the larger derailment of ethics in the public sphere (see Habermas 1975, 1987). This is not to belit- tle the major role played by civil society in Europe, North America and Asia in the construction of CSR (see Bendell 2004) but, rather to highlight the fact that these interventions were the outcome of the PROOF

8 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility very restructuring of global accumulation. In a remarkably short space of time, hegemonic ideas are discursively introduced or reinforced in order to create a consensus or consensual legitimacy (Gramsci 1971), for example the assertion that the corporate sector could regulate itself or that voluntary regulation would be far better than state regulation or that renewed corporate governance is embedded with social objec- tives (Garvey and Newell 2004; Newell 2005; Levy and Newell 2002; Levy and Egan 2003; Mah 2004; Raman 2007a, 2007b; also see Campbell 2006; Carroll 1994). This hegemonic discourse is being used as a strategy by proponents of neo-liberal corporate-led globalization, as a process of ‘mystification’ which works to ‘co-opt/or diffuse potential counter- vailing forces’ (Jones 1996: 33; also see Mah 2004; Spence 2007) by obfuscating the true nature of corporate dealings and mechanism of their genesis (see Foucault 1972, 1984).

CSR in advanced capitalism: Practices and perspectives

As mentioned earlier, CSR, with corporate philanthropy as its forerun- ner, largely originated in the US which is characterized by unregulated markets for labour and capital, and lower levels of state support be it with regard to health, education or community investment in compar- ison with other countries of the world (see Carroll 1999; Matten and Moon 2004; Crane, Matten and Spence 2008: 13). Hence, unlike the countries of Europe or the Far East, there has always been tendency in the US to rely on contributions by corporate capital for many welfare ini- tiatives. Philanthropy is always high on the agenda with, for instance, corporate community contributions by US companies being about ten times higher than those of their British counterparts (Brammer and Pavelin 2005). While the literature on CSR as a concept and a method of practice occupies a position of prominence in the everyday discourse on cap- italist globalization, political economic enquiry has much to offer in the way of valuable insights into the inner workings of CSR as dis- course and practice (see Midttun, Gautesen and Gjølberg 2006; Cutler 2008). Through his chapter, Leslie Sklair brings us a discussion of the three forms of globalization – the abstract in the form of generic glob- alization, the concrete-historical in the form of capitalist globalization and the speculative in the form of alternative globalizations. He then goes on to describe capitalist globalization, the effective power in the global system which is increasingly in the hands of a transnational cap- italist class (TCC) and is comprised of four fractions: those who own PROOF

K. Ravi Raman 9 and control the major corporations and their local affiliates, globalizing bureaucrats and politicians, globalizing professionals and consumerist elites. Sklair’s chapter brings out the manner in which the TCC manages the challenges of CSR, and whose members engage in a variety of CSR- related activities that take place at all levels, from community and urban through national to global politics, involving many different groups of actors in the ongoing struggle to further its class interests. He argues that the opportunities presented by generic globalization (the electronic revolution, post-colonialism, the creation of transnational social spaces and new forms of cosmopolitanism) make it increasingly difficult for the corporate sector and its allies in the TCC to fight off social opposition, and then illustrates the role of the TCC in CSR through some brief case studies (including the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the global tobacco industry and the attempted corporate capture of sustainable development). For Sklair, CSR as conceptualized at the moment paral- lels Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism, namely, the capacity of the west ‘to create worldviews for those in the Orient thus inhibiting their ability to throw off the mental shackles of colonial hegemony’. Hence, Sklair concludes with a brief analysis of what an alternative – human rights- based – CSR regime might look like in one form of alternative globalization. Over the past decade, CSR has also become a widely discussed agenda among Canadian businesses and in civil society, the former claiming that they have ‘made an explicit commitment to CSR’. Canada has been classified as both a ‘high public demand’ country for CSR and as a ‘high volunteer’ liberal regime. As a result, CSR tools have included significant support for volunteer activities and voluntary associations. One quarter of all volunteer work in Canada is undertaken by individuals supported by their employer. Using evidence from a national survey, Paul Bowles and Fiona MacPhail find that the effects of this support include an increase in the quantity of volunteer work that is performed. An analysis of responses from their own survey of women’s voluntary organizations and other organizations reveals that many value corporate support for their volunteers. However, their results also show that women’s organi- zations are less likely to be satisfied with the support they receive from corporations, and perceive that they are less likely to receive such sup- port. A significant minority of all voluntary organizations report that they did not want such corporate support, leading Bowles and MacPhail to suggest that while CSR policies to increase volunteer work may have some positive impacts as the state increasingly withdraws from service provision, its use as a mechanism for social transformation is limited. PROOF

10 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility

Katherine Trebeck examines the relationship between mining compa- nies and indigenous communities in Australia through a study of the Jabilinka Uranium Prospect, Australia. Apart from exploring how indige- nous communities engage with local and cross-border Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and other activists to confront a multinational mining company seeking to develop a uranium mine in Australia’s Kakadu National Park, Trebeck’s study also looks at how anti-corporate movements seek to enter and shape company activities within a neo- liberal state structure. She reveals how confrontation and less combative relations between companies and communities offer potential for the latter to achieve a certain desired corporate behaviour using various techniques of ‘civil regulation’. Focusing on labour import in Romanian industry, namely, Chinese textile workers and Indian construction workers, Camelia Crisan reflects on measures that should be considered in order to contribute to socially- responsible business conduct in the use of local and foreign human resources. Joining the European Union (EU) in 2007 has led to a ris- ing cost of living in Romania and a consequent increase in the costs of the labour force, in what had previously been a low cost economy and a paradise for outplacement. Blamed some years ago by EU trade union members for acceding to low salaries, Romanian workers and commu- nities now face an unexpected challenge: the arrival of Asian workers (mostly from China and India) who come to Romania in return for wages even lower than that accepted by the locals. Crisan tries to answer several policy questions, such as how best the workers can be protected and what human resources strategies have to be put in place so that no work exploitation occurs, both of which would also have consequences on the movement of capital to the East.

CSR in Latin America, South Asia and Africa

There are reasons why one should take into account CSR initiatives or their lack in the global south: in this ‘emerging markets century’ current phase of globalization, the developing economies are expected to expand more than their western counterparts with increasing num- bers of local corporate capital outperforming those in the West and an increased outflow of foreign direct investment from the global south (Goldstein 2007). Secondly, south–south trade with the presence of MNCs has also been expanding. Thirdly, the MNCs from the devel- oping countries do not comply with CSR standards, partly due to the fact that they are conditioned by their exposure to western MNCs who PROOF

K. Ravi Raman 11 follow a policy of maximizing profit even at the cost of social con- cerns as many would argue. No region in the contemporary world has attracted as much attention as the global south, for the corporate surge, anti-corporate anti-state movements and radically renewed popular mobilizations. As Marx rightly pointed out, the proletariat is supplied by the capitalists themselves with the weapons needed to fight capital. The chapters that follow on the landscapes of Latin America and Asia pro- vide rich evidence for how neo-liberalism and corporate capital go hand- in-hand in three of the most critical sectors in which corporate capital- ism has renewed interests – land, water and mining – and explore the myths and pretensions of CSR in a wide variety of closely-related issues; the African case that follows by Barrientoes and Kritzinger (Ch 13) takes us back to the larger ethical question confined to trade and business. Anthony Bebbington explores how corporate capital has been expanding its empire in the extractive industries (EI) in Latin America – specifically in Peru, Ecuador and Central America– and how it encoun- ters diverse social responses, ranging from outright support to deter- mined resistance, as EI expansion, though legal,isfarfromlegitimate. He suggests that, in various ways, both processes reveal and reflect the existence of deeply-rooted legal, cultural and political obstacles to democratization. At the same time, however, Bebbington also ques- tions the democratizing potential of some of these resistance processes, limits that derive not only from the nitty-gritty political context they encounter but also from their own internal dynamics. In such a con- text, the analytical importance of CSR in the EI sector is not so much that it is a palliative in corporate–community relations or an indication of changing corporate culture as, rather, a further obstacle to the sorts of state building, institutional reform and civil society ‘thickening’ that are necessary for democratic deepening and stabilization. Fabiana Li, addressing mining activity in Peru, begins with the argu- ment that, in today’s globalized capitalism, conflicts over mining and the role of MNCs cannot be understood in terms of corporation–state– citizen models that pit these actors against each other. Rather, the ability of mining companies to create alliances with states, neighbouring com- munities and other actors rests on collaboration – which emerges from relationships of cooperation and antagonism – rather than coercion or economic might. Li leads us to the smelter-town of La Oroya in Peru, recently named one of the world’s ten most polluted places, to examine those CSR practices that enable mining companies to achieve collabo- ration. Her ethnographic account of a company-funded day-care centre for lead-poisoned children, health and hygiene programs, environmen- tal campaigns and corporate volunteerism illustrate how corporations PROOF

12 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility are reshaping community relations. While NGOs seek to make pollu- tion visible, many workers and local residents rally in support of the company and defend its environmental practices. According to Li, ‘envi- ronmentalism’ is a new form of CSR that facilitates conversations across difference, allowing actors to construct shared objectives out of diverse and often incommensurable interests. In an attempt to prevent critics from expanding their alliances, the company must ‘localize’ and con- tain pollution by promoting public participation, self-discipline and environmental consciousness, thus shifting the focus from corporate accountability to a shared sense of responsibility. In this way, cor- porations are not only creating new types of subjects, but also new knowledge practices that require novel forms of political action. Alice Bryer examines the challenges in the way of efforts to sus- tain social objectives in Argentine worker-run companies. She uses ethnographic evidence to argue that, contrary to conventional represen- tations of CSR, workers’ struggle to build socially-responsible enterprises reveals the conflictive social basis of the capitalist economy. Although employee-run companies implicitly question alienation, because the labour process must still be a value-creating process, workers remain subject to capitalist imperatives that push them to reproduce ‘all the shortcomings of the prevailing system’. As the Argentine state seems incapable of even improving accountability by capital, Bryer wonders whether workers’ social accounting practices could lead to a more radical type of reform. In his chapter, Rajesh Venugopal discusses and critically evaluates the role of Sri Lanka’s corporate sector in the peace process of 2001–2004. From the late 1990s onwards, some of the most highly visible segments of Sri Lanka’s business community actively adopted the peace agenda and promoted it through a vigorous campaign of political lobbying and mass communication. Emulating the ‘business for peace’ initiatives in South Africa and Northern Ireland, Sri Lankan business groups began to establish pro-peace NGOs, promote constitutional negotiations and organise peace rallies. Their concerted efforts succeeded in initiating a brief peace process came into being under the aegis of the traditionally pro-business United National Party (UNP). This chapter uses recent field- work in Sri Lanka, including interviews with corporate peace activists, NGOs and leading governmental figures, to examine the genesis of the peace process and to understand the extent to which its distinct social and political origins affected its form and content. In doing so, it juxta- poses the politics of peace activism with the politics of market reform, and studies the economic content of the peace package, which included PROOF

K. Ravi Raman 13 an ambitious development programme of market reforms and private- sector led economic growth. Venugopal goes on to explore how the nature of the domestic social sponsorship of the peace process came to have critical political and economic consequences for the peace process, and how it ultimately contributed to its failure. While studies on CSR in varying sectors are legion, there is hardly any literature on CSR in the banking sector, and it is this gap that is bridged in Ajit and Ravi Raman’s chapter on microfinance in India. The pre- dominant segment of increasing outreach by the Bank Self-Help Group (SHG) in India has been the commercial (for profit) model, with corpo- rate banks playing a leading role in this delivery platform. Given the reluctance of banks in general, and multinational banks in particular, to lend to the poor, the study examines why lending to the poor is a ‘successful’ business model: doing good while it is also a chance for ‘looking good’. Ajit and Raman find that the expansion of the commer- cial model presently undertaken through social agencies (like NGOs), without performing the social intermediation function (organizing the poor, promoting thrifts and linking with formal sector, that is, banks) has created new issues in rural societies in India. The corporate model of delivery has resulted in high interest rates similar to that of mon- eylenders, contributed to the rising indebtedness of borrowers and has led to substantial social tensions in some parts of India. Quite at vari- ance with the concept of CSR, the profit-driven commercial model uses the microfinance network to market its financial products and further its profits. The core of the problem, according to Ajit and Raman, lies in the pricing of ‘social intermediation’ costs. The functioning of the commercial model has resulted in a transfer of the social intermediation costs to the ultimate borrower and this often creates high lending rates for borrowers (similar to loan sharks) in turn leading to a mission drift from the twin objectives of financial sustainability and social service to a profit only undertaking; any sign of an ethical behaviour appears largely non-existent. Global soft drink giants have been challenged not only in Latin America (Gill 2007) but in South Asia (Aiyer 2007; Raman 2005, 2007, 2007a, 2010b) as well. Ravi Raman explores the great myth of CSR through a case study of Coca Cola in India, in which the company’s own documents are scrutinized. Further, he also brings out the manner in which local communities have reacted to the adverse effects of the company’s operations and have thereby countered claims to CSR made by the global soft drink giant. While it was the discrimination against black employees, the poor working conditions of migrant workers and PROOF

14 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility the activities of hired paramilitary assassins of trade union leaders and union-affiliated workers that provoked protests in Latin American coun- tries, in India it was thoughtless ecological degradation that laid the land to waste and the poisonous content of the soft drinks them- selves that were condemned by the villagers and activists alike. Raman’s chapter attempts to traverse the complex maze that currently consti- tutes the theory and practice of CSR, by a juxtaposition of the expressed acceptance of CSR by Coca-Cola, one of the world’s biggest oligarchic- corporate structures, and the lived experience of village communities that have borne the ill-effects of its operations. His study is, however, limited to a brief account of the concerns of CSR as contested by the host communities who, in the language of the former, also happen to be one of the stakeholders in corporate power itself. This would be illustrative of the yawning chasm that stretches between the rhetoric of CSR on the one hand and the impact of actual corporate penetration on the other. Inspired by the Marxist conception of primitive accumulation and situating the process largely within the context of Tata’s recent move to build up yet another empire with no less violence, Pranab Kanti Basu substantiates why the idea of CSR is ironical. The irony is empirically obviousifoneexaminestheactivitiesofthehouseofTata–aleading India-based multinational and one that is touted to be a fine example of CSR. While this house doles out welfare benefits for its employees and those inhabiting the hinterland of its project areas, it is also among the most brutal in its land acquisition campaigns. Basu cites Marx’s argu- ment that though capitalist accumulation is based on the non-coercive working of the market, violence is its midwife. But this violent phase of accumulation was argued by Marx to be both logically and chronolog- ically prior to the phase of non-coercive accumulation of surplus value by capital through the commodity circuits. He has argued that Primitive Capital Accumulation (PCA) ever and always supplements and sustains the capitalist order. In keeping with the Marxist position, Basu main- tains that violence is ‘both the midwife and a bloodline of the capitalist order’ and hence any talk of a consensually evolved responsibility of capital towards the society is ironic. The Fair and Ethical trade claim that it eliminates harmful practices such as low payment, child labour, abuses of women workers and so on is in itself open to controversy in almost all the prime sectors it has evolved in – coffee, cocoa and banana – and a fair/ethical trade label is often no guarantee that the product has been through such processes (see Guthman 2004; Fridell, Hudson, I. Hudson and Hudson 2003; also see Levi and Linton 2003; Lindsey 2004; Bernstein and Campling 2006). PROOF

K. Ravi Raman 15

Stephanie Barrientos and Andrienetta Kritzinger draw insights from literature on global production networks, global civil society and stake- holder analyses; critically examining the articulation between corporate and local civil society actors in addressing workers’ rights in global agri- culture. Northern supermarkets and retailers have operated codes of labour practice in their global production networks for nearly a decade. Such codes represent a new form of corporate social accountability, resulting from civil society campaigns against poor labour conditions amongst global suppliers. MNCs have devoted substantial resources to implementing and monitoring their codes, but growing evidence sug- gests that impacts on workers are limited, at best, and that current systems of top-down social auditing are failing to improve conditions for a largely casual, migrant and sub-contracted labour force. Barrientos and Kritzinger use evidence from UK and South African agriculture gathered during an impact assessment for the UK Ethical Trading Initiative carried out in 2003–2006. In both countries, local multi-stakeholder initiatives evolved to play an important role in addressing issues of labour abuse among supermarket suppliers. In particular, the Wine and Agriculture Industry Ethical Trading Association in South Africa and the Temporary Labour Working Group in the UK have involved supermarkets, suppli- ers, trade unions, NGOs and government working at a local level. The authors examine the dynamics and tensions involved in establishing local stakeholder initiatives and ask whether these types of local initia- tives have greater potential for addressing workers rights than top-down corporate codes in global agriculture. Finally, to sum up this exchange of ideas on CSR, Ronnie D. Lipschutz provides an afterword. He unravels the real story behind CSR by posing a few interesting questions. What is behind the rise of corporate social responsibility and self-regulation over the past 15 years or so? Is it a moral or ethical concern for workers and the environment on the part of corporate boards? Does it originate from guilt-ridden consumers, moti- vated by activist campaigns and boycotts on corporate profits and share values? Or is it a response to lacunae in neo-liberal claims to ‘deregu- late’? He argues that it certainly cannot be the last, in as much as there is now more (permissive) regulation of corporate actions than ever before. He discounts the second as well on account of the minimal demonstra- tion of the impacts of campaigns on corporate earnings. And the first he says again is unlikely because, paraphrasing Adam Smith, businessmen pursue corporate self-interest first and foremost. Within a Polanyian per- spective, he argues corporations are no doubt engaging in CSR because it is ‘the thing to do’, but also out of a desire to avoid regulation by states PROOF

16 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility and international institutions. This thereby raises a political question: should corporations be permitted to regulate themselves? And what are the political implications of such self-regulation? Questions that would require unending debates.

Negotiated CSR?

This introductory chapter has been largely confined to three broad premises: the genealogy of CSR, the strategies of legitimization and the actually existing forms of CSR. The chapters in this volume provide ample evidence of how corporate conglomerations continue to come under attack for reasons of corporate greed and mis-governance; they also raise numerous questions and concerns in the context of their activ- ities within multi-ethnic and multicultural environments in the west and Latin America, Africa and Asia. The magnitude of such concerns has become a focus of growing attention in the global south, within which corporate-led globalization often continues to violate interna- tional guidelines, including those of the UN and the OECD. And there are definite signs of improvement or, at least, the possibility for a fresh understanding of CSR, which, however much it has been theo- retically challenged, could mean far more than what corporate capital envisages in terms of labour practices, community involvement, social development and environmental sustainability. Broadly speaking, political economic and social-geographical enquir- ies into CSR and its associated governance are required to address three particular issues before they form a consensus regarding their acceptance or rejection: (i) whether CSR and the associated governance strategies, in their present or an enhanced form would help expose the actually existing state of affairs given the fact that the corporations of today are set within and guided by property rules and accumulation strategies; (ii) whether governance and CSR as conceived and framed by corporate capital truly keeps its promises and meets its commitments in relation to local and community-level experiences; and (iii) to what extent grass roots and organizational level dialogue, confrontation and civil society movements steer corporate capital in the direction of civil society expec- tations, thus neutralizing the adverse impacts of corporate globalization to a certain extent while giving birth to what could be broadly called ‘Negotiated CSR’. What is intended by this is a brand of governance functioning within the inherently hierarchic capitalist economy and working on the strength of social dialogue on fundamental issues such as decent PROOF

K. Ravi Raman 17 work, the right to express concerns and the setting up of social and environmental standards from both below and above, oriented towards a deeper social re-embedding.11 Such a larger concept of sustainability through (imagined) social partnership12 is yet to be mirrored in the UN ‘Global Compact’. The constituents of the larger civil society could not only participate in the dialogue on CSR but also be actively involved in constructing and implementing it until fundamental changes in power relations are brought in. Any alteration in the hierarchic power relations of global capitalism can only be seen as a step forward in light of the over-arching presence of capital in modern society. ‘The tragedy of corpo- rate investment,’ Michal Kalecki (1939: 148) wrote, ‘is that it causes crisis because it is useful’ (italics added); however, one is always reminded of the fact that the driving force behind it has always been ceaseless global accumulation. The need of the hour is a critical exchange of views and perspectives on the truth and feasibility of CSR as a true bedfellow of capitalism, and as a body of critical scholarship, this volume aims to take a small step towards this goal.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to all the participants of the conference for a creative exchange of ideas, and also to John Gledhill, Ronnie Lipschutz, Liam Campling and Timothy M. Shaw for valuable comments on an earlier version of this chapter. The author has also benefited from informal discussions with Henry Bernstein, Tirthankar Roy and K.P. Sethunath.

Notes

1. Marx insisted, ‘Primitive accumulation plays approximately the same role in political economy as original sin does in theology’ (Marx 1976: 873). To quote,

The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslave- ment and entombment in mines of the indigenous population of that continent, the beginnings of the conquest and plunder of India, and the conversion of Africa into a preserve for the commercial hunting of black skins, are all things which characterize the dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief moments of primitive accumulation. (Marx 1976: 915; also see Perelman 2000; Basu in this volume)

2. For details see UNCTAD’s World Investment Report 2008, eighteenth in its series, which focuses on trends in foreign direct investment (FDI) worldwide PROOF

18 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility

at the regional and country levels by transnational corporations, monitors changes in investment regimes and investment agreements and ranks the largest multinationals in the world, see http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ wir2008_en.pdf 3. “Golden Age”, though contested as a usage, yet often employed, see Marglin and Schor (1990), refers to the conditions of capital accumulation from the late 1940s to the late 1970s – broadly the “Keynesian quarter century” during which high investment, high growth, low inflation and low unemployment existed within the capitalist world system – but obviously not without its inequalities and conflicts, primarily in the United States, Western Europe and Japan in Asia. This however could not be sustained owing to capitalism’s own contradictions and imperialist interventions as in the case of Vietnam. 4. As late as 2002, Nestlé has come under criticism for having claimed millions of dollars from Ethiopia, one of the poorest countries in the world, as compensation; for details, see http://www.oxfamamerica.org/ newsandpublications/press_releases/archive2002/art3917.html 5. In early 2003, Rio Tinto, the world’s biggest privately-owned mining com- pany, came under attack for alleged environmental destruction and human rights abuses related to its mining operations in Indonesia. Among other allegations, Rio Tinto, the parent company of the Indonesian mining out- fit PT Citra Palu Mineral (PT CPM), was said to be secretly exploring the protected forest park Poboya-Paneki Great Forest Park for gold reserves and secretly dumping wastes in the sea. The US-based farm chemical multina- tional Monsanto (see Herring 2007; Glover 2007) and fashion brands such as GAP and Nike are companies who pay lip-service to CSR. Global cell phone companies are reported to be the root cause of the massive decline of gorillas in the Congo as coltan, an ingredient in cell phones, is mined in Central Africa. While the human rights abuses of Coca Cola in Columbia (Gill 2005) and India (Raman 2007, 2007a) are alleged to continue unchecked, schol- ars have observed that not less than ten per cent of the commodities in the global market are produced in violation of fundamental workers’ rights (Scherrer and Greven 2001). 6. The fact is that it has closed Tire and Lube Express in Quebec, Canada, owing to the unionization and collective demands of the employees. It is the sec- ond time Wal-Mart has shut a Quebec outlet after its workers decided to form a union as in April 2005, it shut its store in Jonquiere, both violating Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 7. The ‘Hiroshima of the chemical industry’, as it is often called, that took place in Bhopal, India in December 1984, marked the world’s greatest indus- trial disaster – over 15,000 people died, and hundreds of thousands were injured and still suffer from ailments caused by the exposure (see Baxi and Dhanda1990; Cassels 1993; Fortune 2000). 8. Satyam Computers, which had worked itself into the list of Fortune 500 companies on the New York Stock Exchange on the strength of fictitious assets, is now alleged multi-million dollar scam the software firm falsified its accounts, misleading its shareholders, employees and the world at large for several years. 9. While Satyam was awarded the 2008 Golden Peacock Award for Cor- porate Governance under Risk Management and Compliance Issues, the PROOF

K. Ravi Raman 19

US Environmental Protection Agency presented Union Carbide with its Environmental Quality Award, the highest recognition presented to the pub- lic by the agency, which all in turn legitimizes the corporate way of doing business. 10. Apart from this, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Devel- opment (OECD) offers guidelines for corporate investments in member countries while advising MNCs to follow suit in non-member countries as well. 11. For an exploration of the Polanyian socially embedded modern market economy, see Jessop (2001) and Lipschutz in this volume. 12. Two recent instances are worth citing. In 2006, the Grameen Bank, known for its micro-credit revolution with the object of removing poverty in Bangladesh, entered into a joint venture with the French-based food con- glomerate, Groupe Danone, to form the Grameen Danone Foods Social Business Enterprise (Grameen Dialogue, 63, 2006). Though DANONE was obviouslyaimingatanexpansionofitsmarketinlessdevelopedcountries, the generation of social benefits to the society – a key point in the nego- tiation between the two – cannot be completely ignored. Yet another case worth watching would be the recent reconstitution of capital and ‘transfer of control’ of Tata Tea to its employees in Kerala in the Indian south, mak- ing it one of the largest employee buy-outs in the world. There are those who view these developments in a positive light and others who are more cautious in their approach. Deepika (2008) considers the south Indian part of the employee buy-out of Tata Tea, in contrast to its north-eastern policy, a successful model and a symbol of CSR. On the other hand, Neilson and Pritchard (2009) point out the ‘contradiction’ in the new arrangement: with 3 US$ million as equities from employees, a commercial loan from the ICICI worth US$5.55 million and a loan of 7.78 US$ million from Tata, the newly formed Kanan Devan Company (KDHPCL) is left with temporary ownership over the tea gardens but no legal rights over the Kanan Devan tea trade- mark, which is still retained by Tata Tea. Employee buy-outs thus have their own politics and it is too early yet to predict the outcome of Tata’s new strategy (see Raman forthcoming; KDHPCL 2006), bearing in mind that its operations in north-eastern plantations (IUF 2009) and in other sectors have already been called into question (see Basu in this volume).

References

Aiyer, Ananthakrishnan (2007) ‘The Allure of the Transnational: Notes on Some Aspects of the Political Economy of Water in india’, Cultural Anthropology, 22(4), 640–658. Alvarez, S., E. Dagnino and A. Escobar (eds) (1998) Cultures of Politics/Politics of Cultures: Revisioning Latin American Social Movements. Boulder: Westview Press. Also published in Portuguese and Spanish. Alvarez, S., E. Dagnino and A. Escobar (1998) Cultures of Politics, Politics of Cul- tures: Re-visioning Latin American social movements. Colorado: Westview Press. Alvarez, S. and A. Escobar (eds) (1992) The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy, and Democracy.Boulder:WestviewPress. PROOF

20 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility

Amour, John and Joseph A. McCahery (eds) (2006) After Enron: Improving Corpo- rate Law and Modernising Securities Regulation in Europe and the US. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Arrighi, G., K. T. Hopkins, and I. Wallerstein (1989) Antisystemic Movements. London: Verso. Bakan, Joel (2004) The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Power. New York: Penguin Books. Baxi, Upendra and Dhanda, Amita (eds) (1990) Valiant Victims and Lethal Litigation: The Bhopal Case. Bombay: N.H. Tripathi. Bendell, Jem (2004) Barricades and Boardrooms: A Contemporary History of the Corporate Accountability Movement, Programme Paper, 13, Geneva: UNRISD. Bernstein, Henry and Liam Campling (2006) ‘Commodity Studies and Commod- ity Fetishism 11: ‘Profits with Principles’?’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 6(3), July, 414–447. Blowfield, Michael and Jedrzej George Frynas (2005) ‘Setting New Agendas: Crit- ical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Developing World’, International Affairs, 81(3), 499–513. Brammer, S. and S. Pavelin. ‘Corporate Community Contribution in the United States and the United Kingdom’, Journal of Business Ethics, 56(1), 15–26. Brenner, R. (2002). The Boom and the Bubble: the US in the World Economy, New York: Verso. Brenner, R. (2004). New Boom or New Bubble: The Trajectory of the US Economy, New Left Review, 25, January–February. Buttel, Frederick H. and Kenneth A. Gould (2004) ‘Global Social Movement(s) at the Crossroads: Some Observations on the Trajectory of the Anti-Corporate Globalization Movement’, Journal of World-Systems Research, 10(1), 37–66. Campbell, John L. (2006) ‘Institutional Analysis and the Paradox of Corporate Social Responsibility’, American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 925–938. Carroll, A. (1994) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility – Evolution of a Definitional Construct’, Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295. Carroll, A. J. (1999) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct’, Business and Society Review, 38(3), 268–295. Cassels, Jaime (1993) The Uncertain Promise of Law: Lessons from Bhopal. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Christian Aid, (2004) BAT (British American Tobacco) -in its own words, http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/BAT_own_words.pdf, accessed on 1 November 2009. Coates, David (ed.) (2005) Varieties of Capitalism, varieties of approaches, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Crane, Andrew, Dirk Matten and Laura J. Spence (eds) (2008) Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context. Routledge: London and New York. Crossley, N. (2003) ‘Even Newer Social Movements? Anti-Corporate Protests, Cap- italist Crises and the Rationalization of Society’, Organisation, 10(2), 287–305. Cutler, A.C. (2008) ‘Problematizing Corporate Social Responsibility under Con- ditions of Late Capitalism and Postmodernity’, in Volker Rittberger, Martin Nettesheim, and associate editor, Carmen Huckel (eds), Authority in the Global Political Economy. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. De George, Richard T. (1996) ‘The Myth of Corporate Social Responsibility: Ethics and International Business’, in John W. Houck and Oliver F.Williams (eds), Is PROOF

K. Ravi Raman 21

the Good Corporation Dead? Social Responsibility in a Global Economy.London: Rowman & Little. Deepika, M.G. (2008) The Employee Buy Out: Case of Tata Tea, Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program, Oxford, June 22–24. Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and Power, second edition, Harlow: Pearson. Ferguson, James (1990) The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘development,’ depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, J. (2005) ‘Seeing Like an Oil Company: Space, Security, and Global Capital in Neoliberal Africa’, American Anthropologist, 107(3), 377–382. Fine, Ben, Costas Lapavitsas, and Dimitris Milonakis (1999) ‘Addressing the World Economy: Two Steps Back’, Capital & Class, 67, 47–90. Fortun Kim (2000) ‘Remembering Bhopal, Re-Figuring Liability’, Interventions, 2(2), 187–198. Foucault, M. (1980) [1977] ‘Truth and Power’, in Colin Gordon (ed.), Michel Fou- cault Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977.New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. ‘Two Lectures’, in Colin Gordon (trans and ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. (1991) ‘Governmentality’, in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press, pp.87–104. Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge.Tavistock:London. Friedman, Milton (1988) ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits’, New York Times Magazine, September 13, 32–33 reproduced in Crane, Andrew, Dirk Matten and Laura J. Spence (eds) (2008) Corporate Social Responsi- bility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context. Routledge: London and New York, pp. 26–32. Frynas, J. (2005) ‘The False Developmental Promise of Corporate Social Responsi- bility: Evidence from Multinational Oil Companies’, International Affairs, 81(3), 581–598. Garvey, N. and P. Newell (2004) ‘Corporate Accountability to the Poor? Assessing the Effectiveness of Community-Based Strategies’, IDS Working Paper no. 227. Brighton: IDS. Gill, Lesley. (2007). ‘Right There with You, Coca-Cola, Labor Restructuring and Political Violence in Colombia’, Critique of Anthropology, 27(3), 235–260. Gledhill, John (1994) Power and its Disguises: Anthropological Perspectives on Politics. London: Pluto Press. Gledhill, John (ed.) (2004) The Enron Scandal: Global Corporation Against Society. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Glover, Dominic (2007) ‘Monsanto and Smallholder Farmers: A Case Study in CSR’, Third World Quarterly, 28(4), 851–867. Goldstein, Andrea (2007) Multinational Companies from Emerging Economies. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gordon, Colin (1991) ‘Governmental Rationality: An Introduction’ in Graham Burchell Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–51. Grameen Dialogue, 63, 2006, http://www.grameen-info.org/dialogue/dialogue63/ regularfl2.html; accessed on 3 January 2010. PROOF

22 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility

Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers. Grillo, R.D. and Stirrat, R.L. (eds) (1997) Discourses of Development: Anthropological Perspectives. Oxford: Berg. Guthman, Julie (2004) ‘The “Organic Commodity” and Other Anomalies in the Politics of Consumption’, in Alex Hughes and Suzanne Reimer (eds), Geographies of Commodity Chains. London: Routledge, pp. 233–49. Habermas, J. (1975) Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1981) (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action: System and Lifeworld. Cambridge: Polity. Hall, P.A. and Soskice, D. (2001) Ed. Varieties of Capitalism: the Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haufler, V. (2008) ‘MNCs and the International Community: Conflict, Con- flict Prevention and the Privatization of Diplomacy’, in Volker Rittberger, Martin Nettesheim Ed. Authority in the Global Political Economy, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Herring, Ronald, J. (2007) ‘Stealth Seeds: Bioproperty, Biosafety, Biopolitics’, Journal of Development Studies, 43(1), 130–157. Hudson, I. and M. Hudson (2003) ‘Removing the Veil: Commodity Fetishism, Fair Trade and the Environment’, Organization & Environment, 16(4), 413–30. Idemudia Uwafiokun and Uwem E. Ite (2006) ‘Corporate-Community Rela- tions in Nigeria’s Oil Industry: Challenges and Imperatives’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13, 194–206. Jessop, B. (2001) ‘Regulationist and Autopoieticists Reflections’ on Polanyi’s Account of Market Economies and the Market Society’, New Political Economy, 6(2), pp. 213–32. Jones, T. Marc (1996) ‘Missing the Forest for the Trees: A Critique of the Social Responsibility Concept and Discourse’, Business & Society, 35(1), 7–41. Kakabadse, A. and M. Morsing (2006) Corporate Social Responsibility: Reconciling Aspiration with Application. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kakabadse, A. P., N. K. Kakabadse and C. Rozuel. (2006) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Contrast of Meanings and Intents’ in Andrew Kakabadse and Nada Kakabadse (eds), CSR in Practice: Delving Deep, pp. 9–45 Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke. Kalecki, M. (1939) Essays in the Theory of Economic Fluctuations. London: Allen and Unwin. Kapferer, Bruce (2002) ‘Foundation and Empire (with apologies to Isaac Asi- mov): A Consideration of Hardt and Negri’s Empire’, Social Analysis, 46(1), 167–79. Kapferer, Bruce (2005) ‘New Formations of Power, the Oligarchic-Corporate State, and Anthropological Ideological Discourse’, Anthropological Theory, 5(3), 285–299. KDHPCL (Kanan Devan Hills Plantations Company Private Limited) (2006) Annual Report, 2005–6. Munnar: KDHP Office. Korten, D. (1995) When Corporations Rule the World. San Francisco: Herret-Koehler. Levi, M. and A. Linton (2003) ‘Fair Trade: A Cup at a Time?’ Politics and Society, 31(3), 407–432. Levy, D.L. and D. Egan (2003) ‘A Neo-Gramscian Approach to Corporate Political Strategy: Conflict and Accommodation in the Climate Change Negotiations’, Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 803–829. PROOF

K. Ravi Raman 23

Levy, D.L. and P.J. Newell (2002) ‘Business Strategy and International Environ- mental Governance: Towards a Neo-Gramscian Synthesis’, Global Environmental Politics, 2(4), 84–101. Lindsey, B. (2004) Grounds for Complaint: ‘Fair trade’ and the Coffee Crisis.London: Adam Smith Institute. Lipschutz, Ronnie and James K. Rowe (2005) ‘Globalization’, Governmentality and Global Politics, Regulation for the Rest of Us? Routledge: London. Mah, Alice (2004) ‘Uneasy Partnerships and Contradictions: Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility’, paper presented at the 3rd Annual Global Studies Association Conference, Brandeis University, 24 April. http://www. net4dem.org/mayglobal/Events/Conference%202004/papers, accessed on 1 January 2010). Marina Prieto-Carrón, Peter Lund-Thomsen, Anita Chan, Ana Muro and Chandra Bhushan, (2006) ‘Critical Perspectives on SR and Development – What We Know, What We Don’t, and What We Need to Know’, International Affairs, 82 (5), pp. 977–987. Mara Fridell, Ian Hudson, and Mark Hudson (2008) ‘With Friends like These: The Corporate Response to Fair Trade Coffee’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 40, 8–34. Marglin, Stephen A. and Juliet B. Schor (1990) The Golden Age of Capitalism: Reinterpreting the Postwar Experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Marx, K. (1976) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1. New York: Penguin Books. Mason, Edward S. (ed.) (1959) The Corporation in Modern Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Massie, Robert Kinloch (1997) Loosing the Bonds: The United States and South Africa in the Apartheid Years. New York: Doubleday. Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2004) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Education in Europe’, Journal of Business Ethics, 54(4), 323–337. Melucci, Alberto (1989) Nomads of the Present. London: Hutchinson Radius. Midttun, Atle, Kristian Gautesen and Maria Gjølberg (2006) ‘The Political Econ- omy of CSR in Western Europe’, Corporate Governance, 6(4), pp. 369–385. Mitchell, Lawrence E. (2001) Corporate Irresponsibility: America’s Newest Export. New Haven: Yale University Press. Morano, Ro (1982) The Protestant Challenge to Corporate America: Issues of Corporate Social Responsibility. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press. Moffat, D., and O. Linden (1995) ‘Perception and Reality Assessing Priorities for Sustainable Development in the Niger Delta’, Journal of the Human Environment, 24(7–8), 327–538. Neilson, Jeff and Bill Pritchard (2009). Value Chain Struggles: Institutions and Governance in the Plantation Districts of South India, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Newell, Peter (2005) ‘Citizenship, Accountability and Community; the Limits of the CSR Agenda’, International Affairs, 81(3), 541–557. Obiora, L. A. (1999) ‘Symbolic Episodes in the Quest for Environmental Justice’, Human Rights Quarrterly, 21 (2), pp. 464–512. Okonta, I. and O. Douglas (2001) When Vultures Feast: Shell, Human Rights, and Oil in the niger Delta, San Franciso: Sierra Club Books. Perelman, Michael (2000) The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Econ- omy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. PROOF

24 Strange Bedfellows? Critiquing Corporate Social Responsibility

Porta, Donatella Della and Mario Diani (1999) Social Movements: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Raman, Ravi K. (2005) ‘Corporate Violence, Legal Nuances and Political Ecology’, Economic and Political Weekly, 40(25), June, 18–24. Raman, Ravi K. (2007) ‘Plachimada Resistance: A Postdevelopmenet Social Move- ment Metaphor?’ pp. 163–180 in Aram Ziai (ed.), Exploring Post-Development: Theory and Practice, Problems and Perspectives. Routledge: London. Raman, Ravi K. (2007a) ‘Community-Corporate Interface: Political Anthropolog- ical Concerns of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Social Analysis: International Journal of Cultural and Social Practice, 51(3), Winter, 103–120. Raman, Ravi K. (forthcoming) ‘Transverse Solidarity: Water, Power and Resis- tance’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 42, 2. Raman, Ravi K. (2010) Global Capital and Peripheral Labour: The History and Political Economy of Plantation Workers in India. Routledge: London and New York. Richter, Judith (2001) Holding Corporations Accountable: Corporate Conduct, Inter- national Codes and Citizen Action. London and New York: Zed Books. Roberts, John (2003) ‘The Manufacture of Corporate Social Responsibility: Con- structing Corporate Sensibility’. Organization, 10(2), May, 249–265. Sawyer, Suzana and Terence Gomez (2008) Transnational Governmentality and Resource Extraction: Indigenous Peoples, Mutlinational Corporations, Multi- national Institutions and the State, UNRISD, Geneva. Sklair, Leslie (2001) The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell. Scherrer, Christoph and Thomas Greven (2001) Global Rules for Trade: Codes of Conduct, Social Labeling, Workers’ Rights Clauses. Münster: Verlag Westfalisches Dampfboot. Seidman, Gay W. (2003) ‘Monitoring Multinationals: Lessons from the Anti- Apartheid Era’, Politics & Society 3(31), 381–406. Smith Timothy (1981) ‘The Ethical Responsibilities of Multinational Companies’, in Bradshaw Vogel (ed.), Corporations and their Critics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Spence, Crawford (2007) ‘Social and Environmental Reporting and Hegemonic Discourse’. Accouting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(6), 855–882. Steinberg, E. (2000) Just Business Ethics in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trouillot, Michel-Rolphe (2001) ‘The Anthropology of the State in the Age of Globalization: Close Encounters of the Deceptive Kind’, Current Anthropology, 42(1), 125–138. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2008) World Investment Report: Transnational Corporations, and the Infrastructure Challenge. New York and Geneva; http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/wir2008_en.pdf Utting P. (ed.) (2002) The Greening of Business in Developing Countries: Rhetoric, Reality and Prospects. London: Zed Books. van Agtmael Antoine (2007) The Emerging Markets Century: How a New Breed of World-Class Companies Is Overtaking the World. New York: Free Press. Werner J. Feld (1980) Multinational Corporations and U.N. Politics: The Quest for Codes of Conduct. New York: Pergamon. PROOF

Index

Note: Locators in bold type indicate figures, those in italics indicate tables.

ABN-AMRO, 165 Associación los Andes de accounting, 43, 132, 138, 140–3 Cajamarca, 108 accumulation astroturf phenomenon, 29 Marx on the violent phase of, 201 Atzeni, M., 131, 133 see also primitive capital Australia accumulation (PCA) Energy Resources of (ERA), 62, 67–9, ‘accumulation by dispossession’, 3 71, 76 acquisition, environmental uranium mining industry, 10, see hazards, 214 also Jabiluka mine prevention ActionAid, 232 campaign adivasis, 186, 205, 213, 214, 215 Australian Conservation Foundation Aiyer, A., 185 (ACF), 63 Ajit, D., 13, 165–79, 257 Auty, R., 98 Alayza, A., 104 Auyero, J., 134 Ally, F., 225, 239n2 Avineri, S., 247 Alter, K., 251 Altman, J., 71, 74, 76n16 Bacau textile workers Alvarez, S., 3 and CSR, 91–2 Ananth, B., 177 grievances, 87 Andhra Pradesh press coverage, 88–9 land acquisition, 204–5 public opinion survey, 89–91, 93 microfinance in, 172, 174, 176–7 working conditions, 87–8 special economic zones, 204 see also labour migration in Anglo American, 29 Romania Antamina, 108 Bakan, J., 7 anti-globalization movements, Balasingham, A., 163n1 intensification of, 3 Bandaranaike, S., 153 anti-poverty programmes, India, Banerjee, B., 65, 73 169, 178 Banerjee-Guha, S., 204, 212 Anton, A., 245 banking sector, sustainability Antón, G., 131 criteria, 165 Aplin, G., 70 Barandiarán, A., 121 appropriated surplus value, 208 Barkin, S., 254 Arana, M., 128n2 Barrientos, S., 15, 219–39, 250, Argentina, destabilization of 255, 261 dominant power structures, 132 Basu, P., 179n7, 258, 261 Argentine workers’ cooperatives, see Basu, P. K., 14, 15, 18n1, 201–17, 245 empresas recuperadas (ERs) Bebbington, A., 11, 97–114, 245, 249, Armstrong, P., 141 260, 261 Arrighi, G., 3 Beck, U., 38

267 PROOF

268 Index

Becker, G., 166 capitalism Bendell, J., 8, 60, 72, 73 golden age of, 4 Bennett, L., 166 and public good, 3–4 Bernstein, H., 15 capitalist accumulation, Marx on the Besley, T., 166, 179n16 violence of, 201 Bhopal, 6, 19, 190 capitalist globalization Bijoy, C. R., 185 crises of, 25, 27 ‘bio-solids’, 189–92 finding viable alternatives to, 39–40 Blair, M. M., 92 capitalist philanthropy, forms of, 4–5 Blowfield, M., 4 Carroll, A., 8 Boehm, A., 92 Carroll, A. J., 8 Bolivia, 101 Carroll, B. A., 91 Bota, M., 83, 84 Cassels, J., 19n7 Bowles, P., 9, 42–58, 248 Castles, S., 84, 86, 89 Boyer, R., 262n4, n5 Cavanagh, J., 194 BP, 35 Cederstav, A., 121 Braithwaite, J., 245 Centromín, 118, 120–1 Brammer, S., 8 Cerro de Pasco Corporation Brandix, 156 incorporation, 118 BRC, 227–8 Industrial Hygiene division, 120 Brenner, R., 3 La Oroya smelter construction, 116 Bridge, G., 99, 100 see also La Oroya smelter Briner, M., 135 Cerro Quilish, Peru, 117 Broomhill, R., 57 Ceylinco Group, 155–6 Brown, P., 68, 69 Chhatisgarh, 202, 205 Bryer, A., 12, 130–45, 253, 261 child labour, 6, 15, 226, 228 Bryer, R. A., 141 China, SACOM’s role, 36–7 BT, 29 Chinese workers in Romania, see Bucharest, Miners’ March, on, 84 Bacau textile workers Buchholtz, A. K., 91 Chiriac, M., 90 Burton, B., 74 chromite mines, Sukhinda Valley, business for peace initiatives, 12 India, 202 S. Africa and N. Ireland, 156 CitiBank, 165 Sri Lanka, 152, 155–6 Citizenship Report (Coca Cola), 183–4 But, F., 81 civil regulation, 10, 60, 71–2, 74–5 Buttel, F. H., 3 civil society influence on working conditions, Callari, A., 208 222–3, 225 Camino, A., 103, 109 mobilization power of, 223 Campbell, J. L., 8, 189, 260 Clairmont, F., 194 Campling, L., 15 Clarke, T., 92 Canada class polarization, 25–6, 33, 38–40 CSR policy environment, 43, 45 Coate, S., 166, 179n16 dominance of corporate-community Coates, D., 2 interface, 58 Coca-Cola volunteer work, see volunteer work accusations of intimidation, 195 in Canada citizenship reports, 183–4 Canclini, N. G., 250 Colombian operations, 18n5, 195, Capital (Marx), 210 197n19 PROOF

Index 269

Coca-Cola in India, 14 corporate philanthropy, origins of, 4 ‘bio-solids’ discourse, 189–92 CorporateRegister.com, 30 CSR manifesto, 183–4 corporate violence, 3, 184 Energy and Resources Institute corporate volunteerism, Doe Run study, 191, 192 Peru, 124–5 Environmental Impact corporation, the stakeholders Assessments, 192 of the, 91 ‘environmental racism’, 185 cosmopolitanism, 27 human rights perspective, 188–9 Coulter, M., 68 misuse of natural resources, 185 Cowen, M., 98 Plachimada’s experience, Crisan, C., 10, 81–94, 249 186–8, 194 Crossley, N., 7 protests against, 185, 188 CSR (corporate social responsibility) quality control monitoring, 193 concept analysis, 29–30 re-entry, 184 negotiated, 16–17 toxicity studies, 190, 191 Cusmano, A., 135 ‘water neutrality’ pledge, 194 Cutler, A. C., 8 codes of conduct, consensus on, 4 Cohen, R., 3, 37 Danone, 19n12 Coifer Group Ltd, 81 Dasgupta, 178n1 Colás, A., 259 Davidson, A., 84, 86, 89 Colombia, Coca-Cola’s operations, Dávolos, P., 131, 133 18n5, 195, 197n19 Dawson, M., 250 colonization, Habermasian Dean, M., 182 perspective, 6–7 de Blas, A., 67 coltan, 18n5 de Echave, J., 100 commercial microfinance in India, see Deepika, M. G., 19n12 microfinance in India De George, R. T., 3 communications potential of the Dell, 32 worldwide web, 35 democracy, ambiguity of relationships community involvement, as priority between extractive industries and, CSR element, 44 98–100 community organizations, increase in see also resource curse interactions between the democratic accounting, 142 Canadian corporate sector ‘denouncing and speaking out’, and, 45 Foucauldian strategy, 195 Congo, decline of gorillas in, 18n5 Devanathan, N., 197n20 Constantinescu, M., 82, 85 DeWind, J., 119 consumerism, 28, 31–2, 34, 37, 40 Dicken, P., 222, 223 Context.com, 29–30 differential exclusion, 86, 89, 93 Coraggio, J., 132 Dinerstein, A. C., 132, 144 corporate behaviour, stakeholder discrimination influence on, 61 against casual workers, 220 ‘corporate irresponsibility’, 5, embeddedness, 229 184, 190 ethnicity-based, 14, 230 corporate lobbyists, CSR ETI codes against, 226, 228 obfuscation, 29 gender-based, 6, 57, 229 corporate misbehaviour, SACOM’s Disney Corporation, 36 monitoring role, 36–7 distribution of income, 26, 211 PROOF

270 Index

Doane, D., 250 Peronist influences, 133–4 Doe Run Peru, 116–17, 120–2, regional concentrations, 133–4 125–8 union involvement, 133 community relations programmes, Enache, S., 87 122–3 enclosure of the commons, corporate volunteerism, 124–5 196n9, 210 public relations strategy, 122 Enron, 7 social programmes’ focus, 122 ‘Enron of India’, 6 see also La Oroya smelter, Peru Environmental Impact Assessments, Doppelt, B., 92 191–2 Douglas, O., 5 environmentalism Dow Chemical, 6 corporations’ use of language Drache, D., 262n4 of, 117 Drahos, P., 245 García’s perspective, 101, 110 du Toit, A., 225, 239n2 as new form of CSR, 12 Dunham, D., 163n4, n5 and progress, 126 environmental performance Eastern European Countries (EECs), monitoring, conflicts of interests EU requirements, 83 in, 104 ecological distress, 26 environmental problems, and ecological unsustainability, class capitalist globalization, 26 polarization and, 38, 40 ERA (Energy Resources of Australia), economic crisis 62, 67–9, 71, 76 global, 61, 212 Escobar, A., 3, 7 India, 169 ethical trade economic equilibrium clauses, 35 evolution of, 219–20 Ecuador, 101 global and local approaches to, Egan, D., 8 234–5 electronic revolution, 27, 30–2, 36 as risk management, 236 El Salvador, 101 supermarkets’ view of, 236 emancipatory potential ethical trade in South Africa of globalization, 31, 35 codes through commercial value of postcolonialism, 32–4 chains, 225–6 of transnational social space, 37 ETI impact assessment, 235–6 employee volunteer activity, global dynamics of commercial and organizations’ belief in the civil society interaction, 222–3 benefits of, 45 legislation’s influence, 224, 235 empresas recuperadas (ERs) multi-stakeholder initiative, 220 accounting perspective, 140–3 overview, 220–1 consolidation of the first worker-run research findings, 227–30 company, 134 research methodology, 226–7 dialectical construction of and supermarket codes, 226–8 ‘alternative power’, 132–4 vulnerable and insecure emergence, 130 workers, 230 and horizontal power, 130, 136 see also South African agriculture Hotel Bauen, 138, 139–40, 141–4 ethical trading initiative (ETI), 4, IMPA, 134, 136–9 220–1, 225–6, 228, 235 and INAES, 143 Base Code, 225–6 institutional context, 134–6 Etzioni-Halevy, E., 74 PROOF

Index 271

Eurepgap, 227–8 Friedman, M., 3 European welfare state institutions, Friends of the Earth, 62–3, 69, 75 Tilly on, 112 Frynas, J., 4 Evans, B. M., 47 Fujimori, A., 117 Evans, T., 189 Fundación Ancash, 108 extractive industries Fung, A., 250 ambiguity of relationships between Funnell, W., 141 democracy, development and, 98–100, see also resource curse Gallhofer, S., 141–2 Canadian involvement, 42 Galtung, J., 244 conflicts of interests in GAP, 18n5 environmental performance García, A., 101, 109–10 monitoring, 104 Garvey, N., 8, 61 corporate depictions, 127 Gautesen, K., 8 definition, 97 General Agreement on Trade and Latin American expansion, 11, 100, Services, 188 see also La Oroya smelter, Peru; generic globalization, Peruvian mining sector characteristics, 27 local populations’ experience of genetic engineering, fundamental exploration, 102 impetus for, 211 public health and, 100 Gereffi, G., 222, 223 social responsibility and social Ghatak, M., 166 conflict, 106–11 Ghate, P., 165, 172, 179n10 see also Jabiluka mine prevention Ghigliani, P., 131, 133 campaign Gill, L., 18n5, 195 Exxon, 30 Gjølberg, M., 8 GlaxoSmithKline, 4, 29 Face the Facts (BBC), 190 Gledhill, J., 7, 189, 195 Fagan, M., 70 ‘Global Compact’ (UN, 2000), 6 Fairclough, N., 7 global corporations, economic Fajn, G., 133 power, 223 farmer suicides, India, 171–2, 174 global financial crisis, 61, 212 FDI flows, increase in global, 2–3 globalization FDI outflow alternative, 215 increase in from developing characteristics of generic, 27 countries, 5–6 emancipatory potential, 30–1, 35 of largest outward investors, 3 environmental problems, 26 Feld,W.J.,4 global value chain analysis, Ferguson, J., 7, 98 commercial emphasis, 222 Ferguson, N., 257 ‘Global Water Initiative’ Fine, B., 3, 132, 194 (Coca-Cola), 184 Fine, R., 37 Glover, D., 18n5 Fortun, K., 19n7 Godfrey, S., 225 Foster, M., 42, 49, 50, 57 gold, 2–4, 10–11, 18, 18, 19, 75, Foucault, M., 7–8, 182, 187, 195, 166–7, 171, 202 196n12, 244, 262n5 Goldberg, M., 166 Fox, R. W., 62 golden age of capitalism, 4 Freeman, E. R., 91 Goldstein, A., 2, 3, 10, 11 Fridell, M., 15 Gomez, T., 5 PROOF

272 Index

Gopalpur-on-Sea, Orissa, 202 horizontal power, in Argentine Gordon, C., 7, 182 cooperatives, 130, 136 gorillas, cell phone companies’ Hotel Bauen, 139–40, 141–4 involvement in decline of, 18n5 Ho tribe, 203 Grameen Bank, 19, 172, 175 Howarth, M., 130, 135, 136 Grameen Danone Foods Social Howell, J., 223 Business Enterprise, 19n12 HP, 29 Gramsci, A., 8, 19n12, 131, 140, 183 HSBC, 165 greenwashing, 98 Hudson, I., 15 Greven, T., 18n5 Hudson, M., 15 Grupo Norte, 108 Hughes, S., 89 Guatemala, 195 human rights violations, 5, 18n5, 195 Guha Neogi, S., 217n13 Humphrey, J., 222 Guha, R., 185 Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation ICMM (International Council for (GAC), 62–3, 71 Metals and Minerals), 99, 113 Gunningham, N., 72, 73, 76n18 IMF (International Monetary Fund), Guthman, J., 15, 194 83, 157–8, 162–4, 169 IMPA (Metallurgical and Plastic Habermas, J., 6, 7 Industries of Argentina), 134, 136, HACCP, 227–9 136–9 hacienda model, 109–10, 118–19 imperialism, principle endeavour Hadjipateras, A., 88 of, 211 Hale, A., 88 INAES (Instituto Nacional de Hall, P. A., 2 Asociativismo y Economía Social), Hall, S., 262n6 137–8, 143–4 Hardin, G., 251 income distribution, 26, 211 Harrison, J. S., 91 incomplete migration, Harvey, D., 3 characteristics, 85 Haslam, J., 141–2 India Haslam, P., 44 anti-poverty programmes, 169, 178 Haworth, N., 89 chromite mines, 202 Hegel, G. W. F., 247, 248, 258 dam projects, 165, 205, 213–14 hegemonic discourse, as economic crisis, 169 ‘mystification’ process, 8 farmer suicides, 171–2, 174 Held, D., 61 see also Coca-Cola in India; land Hemas Holdings, 156 acquisition in India; Herring, R. J., 18n5 microfinance in India Hextall, B., 76n11 indigenous communities, and Higgott, R., 223 Australian uranium mining Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages industry, 10 Pvt. Ltd, 184 see also Jabiluka mine prevention Hochschild, A., 257 campaign Holloway, J., 132 Indonesia, human rights abuses Holocaust, 37 related to mining operations in, Honda, 32 18n5 Hong Kong Disneyland, 36 industrialization-with-eviction Hopkins, K. T., 3 programme, India, see land Hordern, N., 68 acquisition in India PROOF

Index 273 internet, role in mobilization, 32 Keck, M., 251, 263n7 Iserles, T., 68 Keels, J., 156 ISO (International Organization for Kelegama, S., 163n4, n5 Standardization), 30 Kelly, K. O., 222, 223 Ite, U. E., 5 Kennedy, P., 86 Kiely, R., 223 Jabiluka Long Term Care and Koel Karo Dam, 205 Maintenance Agreement Kolk, A., 250 (2005), 70 Korten, D., 7 Jabiluka mine prevention campaign Kotelawala, L., 155–6 alliances, 63 Kritzinger, A., 11, 15, 219–39, 250, areas of objection, 62–3 255, 261 background, 61–2 Kumaratunga, C. B., 153 blockade, 67 civil regulation and, 71–5 Labonne, B., 73 context, 61 labour migration, World Bank government responses, 70–1 study, 86 institutional shareholders’ concerns, labour migration in Romania 66–7 gender ratio, 85 international dimension, 64–5 historical perspective, 84–5 milling vetoes, 68 household survey results, 82 nationwide protests, 63 overview, 81–3 North’s reaction to, 64, 67–8 phases, 85 Rio Tinto’s response, 69–70 related legislation, 86–7 shareholder activism, 65–6 routes, 85 stakeholder theory and, 73–4 textile industry and, 84 Jacobs, D., 29 work permits issued, 83 Jayasuriya, K., 251 see also Bacau textile workers Jayewardene, J. R., 152 labour standards, civil society’s Jenkins, R., 239n1 influence, 222–3, 225 Jessop, B., 19n11 Laite, J., 118, 119 Jones,M.T.,3,7,8 Lake Chilika, Orissa, 202 Jones,T.M.,3,7,8 land acquisition in India Jossa, B., 17, 19n12 and the clash of ethics, 213–15 environmental costs, 206 Kabeer, N., 263n11 impact on the distribution of Kakabadse, A., 5 ‘entitlements’, 204 Kakabadse, A. P., 5 legislation, 203 Kakabadse, N. K., 5 Marxian perspective, 201, 207–9 Kakadu National Park, Australia, 10, and profit enhancement, 209 61, 65 public attitudes towards, 204–5 Kalecki, M., 17 and special economic zones Kalinganagar, Orissa, 202–3 policy, 203 Kant, I., 27, 37 speed of, 203–4 Kapelus, P., 72, 73 state subsidies, 205–6 Kapferer, B., 7, 185 and state violence, 202–3, Kaplinsky, R., 222 205, 207 Katona, J., 62, 63, 70, 75n2 Tata’s activities, 202–3 KDHPCL, 19n12 theoretical perspective, 211–13 PROOF

274 Index

Lansbury, N., 66 market La Oroya smelter, Peru democracy and the, 243 activist campaigns, 121 immanence of violence in the, 244 CDC report, 123 market-based regulation, inadequacy contaminants, 118 of, 243 corporate volunteerism, 124–5 market freedom, as social good, 3 Doe Run’s CSR campaign, 122 Marr, A., 65, 67 emblematic status, 118 Marx, K., 2, 11, 14, 18n1, 131, 140–2, emissions, 118 145n2, 201, 207–10, 213, 216n1 extent of pollution, 121 Marxist political economy, health and hygiene programmes, 207, 209 122–5 MAS Holdings, 156 historical perspective, 118–19 Massey, D. S., 82 legal action against, 119 Massie, R. K., 4 public and environmental health Matten, D., 8 concerns, 119–21 McDonald’s, 32, 37 residents’ perspectives, McIntosh, C., 179n16 120–1, 126 McWilliams, A., 73 Leanca, A., 87 Meinhard, A., 42, 49–50, 57 Leopold, E., 194 Melucci, A., 3 Levi, M., 15 micro-credit Levitus, R., 71, 76n16 attractions of, 175 Levy, D. L., 8 drivers of repayment rates, 175 Lindberg, L. N., 260 relative costs, 166–7 Linden, O., 5 microfinance in India Lindsey, B., 15 Andhra Pradesh, 172, 174, 176–7 Linton, A., 15 deceptive lending practices, 177–8 Lipschutz, R. D., 15, 242–64 delivery models, 175–7 Lipschutz,R.,3,7,19n11, 195 double dipping, 177, 178 Loft, A., 140 and economic reform, 169–70 lohn industry (Romania), 83 evolution and progress, 167–9 LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil ICICI partnership model, 174, 177 Eelam), 149–50, 154–5, 157–8 indebtedness of farm Luffman, J., 47 households, 171 Lund-Thomsen, P., 5 interest rates, 13, 167–8, 177 Lupoaie, C., 81 provincial schemes, 174 repayment rates, 169, 175, 178 Mac Ginty, R., 163n2 self-help groups and, 172–5 Macdonald, K., 223 SHG-Bank linkage model, 175–6 MacPhail, F., 42–58 SHG-Bank linkage programme Macpherson, C. B., 256 progress, 173 Mah, A., 3, 8 sources of conflict, 177 Maheshwar Dam, 165 theoretical overview, 166–7 Manifesto for Growth (Coca-Cola), 183 Midttun, A., 8 Mansori, K., 254 Milani, B., 250 maquiladoras,83 Miller, C., 64 Margarula, Y., 62–3, 65, 67–8, Miller, L., 29, 32, 36 75–75 Miller, P., 182 Marglin, S. A., 18n3 Milne, G., 65 PROOF

Index 275 mineral exploration, global Nelson, V., 221 investment increase, 100 Nestlé, 5–6, 18 Minera Yanacocha, 108 Newell, P., 8, 61, 191, 223 Miners’ March, on Bucharest, 84 Newell, P. J., 8 mining, Latin American Nicaragua, 195 investment, 100 Nike, 18n5 mining industry Nokia, 29 community relationships handling, Norris, P., 243 102–4 North American Free Trade corporate responsibility programme Agreement, 188 models, 106–8 Northern Ireland, business for peace human rights abuses, 18n5 initiatives, 156 Mirrar people, 60–5, 70 North Ethical Shareholders (NES), Mitchell, L. E., 5, 184 65–6 mobilization, internet’s role, 32 North Ltd, 62 Modesto, G., 138, 145n5 Moffat, D., 5 O’Brien, J., 69 Monsanto, 18 Obiora, L. A., 5 Monterrico Metals, 107 obsolescence rates, of consumer Montolio, J., 132 durables, 212 Moon, J., 8 occupational health, 37, 120–1, 224 Moore, M., 163n4 O’Faircheallaigh, C., 71 Mor, N., 177 Okolski, M., 85 Morano, R., 4 Okonta, I., 5 Morris, M., 222 Ollman, B., 131 Morris, W., 258, 259 Olson, M., 248 Morsing, M., 5 Organizational Approaches to Motorola, 29, 36 Employer Support for movement of capital, Marx on the Volunteers, 55 control of, 141 Orientalism, 9, 33 Mujumdar, N. A., 168 Orissa, 202 multinationals, consensus on the O’Rourke, D., 250 desired code of conduct for, 4 Murray, J., 89 Owen-Brown, M., 62 Murrihy, S., 64, 68 Oxfam, 232 MySpace, 32 Oxnam, K., 68, 76n9

Nandigram, West Bengal, 205, Papadie, B., 81 207, 213 Paris, R., 163n2 Narmada Bachao Andolan (Movement Parker, C., 72–4 to Save the Narmada), 214 Patterson, T., 243 National Bank for Rural Development Pauliuc, O., 87 (NABARD), 173 Pavelin, S., 8 nation-state, corporatization of, 7 Pearce, F., 197n22 Nedelcu, M. F., 82 Pearce, J., 223 negotiated CSR, 16–17 peasant rights, expropriation of, Neilson, J., 19n12 201, 208 Nelson, M. R., 197n20 peasants, violence against, 205, 207 Nelson, N., 223 Pedlar, R., 29 PROOF

276 Index peer-monitoring, importance in Pritchard, B., 19n12 micro-credit, 166 Prieto, M., 88 Perelman, L., 131, 133 primitive capital accumulation (PCA), Perelman, M., 18n1 201, 207–12, 214 Perera, M., 163n1 and dam construction, 214 Peru overview, 201 corporate taxation, 106–7 and rent appropriation, 210 exploration and extraction and TRIPS, 211 concessions practices, 101, violence of, 201, 209 104–5 ‘prodevelopment soap operas’, 31 La Oroya smelter, see La Oroya protectionism, 35 smelter, Peru public health, and extractive mining sector, see Peruvian mining industries, 100 sector Puley, R., 169 Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI), 127 Radu, C., 85 Peruvian mining sector Rai, A. S., 166 extraordinary voluntary Rajagopal, B., 34 contribution, 107, 112 Rajapakse, M., 153 Garcia on activists’ demands, Raman, K. R., 1–19, 113, 165–79, 110–11 182–97, 245, 253, 257, 261 growth, 97 Ranger uranium mine, Australia, 61, and the hacienda model, 109–10, 63, 65, 68–70, 75, 76 118–19 Ranis, P., 132–3, 138 impact of intensification in activity, ‘rate of exploitation’, determining 117–18 the, 209 legitimacy problem, 102–5 Rebón, J., 130, 131, 133, 134, 136, privatization of state-owned 145n3 companies, 118 Recession, 3, 132 Rio Blanco Project, 107–8 Reed, D., 92 social responsibility initiatives, Regaining Sri Lanka (RSL), 159–60 106–8, 111–12 rent Yanacocha gold mine, 108 Marxian perspective, 210 Plachimada, Kerala, 185–7, 190, and resource mobility, 210–11 192, 194 rent extraction Poboya-Paneki Great Forest Park, global financial crisis and, 212 Indonesia, 18 key allowing factors, 210 political economy, Marxist, 207, 209 preventing, 215 Polanyi, P., 242 as principle endeavour of Pop, C., 87 imperialism, 211 Porta, D. D., 3 Reserve Bank of India (RBI), 173 postcolonialism, 27 resource curse, 97–102, 105, 111, 113 emancipatory potential, 32–4 Resnick, S. A., 208 Powell, F., 216n4, 217n12 responsible corporate citizenship, UN Prahlad, C. K., 174 promotion of, 6 Pranab Kanti Basu, 14, 15, 18n1, Richmond, O., 163n2 179n7, 201–17, 245, 258, 261 rights, impossibility of market Premadasa, R., 152 valuation of, 214 Preston, L. E., 91 Rio Tinto, 6, 18, 18, 62, 69–70, 75, 76 PROOF

Index 277 risk management, ethical trade as, 236 Sem Suhner, 81 Robbins, P., 33, 38 Seyfang, G., 88 Roberts, B., 208 Sharp, J., 63, 73 Roberts, J., 3 Shastri, A., 163n4 Robles, A. C., 262n5 Shaw, L., 88 Robotin, M., 90 Shell, 29–30 Romania Shemberg, A., 35 labour migration, 10, see also Bacau Shenton, R., 98 textile workers; labour Shetty, S. L., 167, 168, 171, 172 migration in Romania Shields, J., 47 unemployment rates, 84 ‘shining India’, 201 Rose, J., 66 shopping mall, invention of the, 34 Rose, N., 182 Shylendra, H. S., 172 Rowe, J. K., 3, 7 Siegel, D., 73 Rowell, A., 30 Sikkink, K., 251, 263n7 Rowlands, J., 223 Singer, P., 263n10 Rozuel, C., 5 Singur, West Bengal, 203, 206–7, 209, Ruggeri, A., 131, 134, 136 213–14 Sjoström, T., 166 SACOM (Students and Scholars Sklair, L., 8, 9, 25–40, 194, 252 against Corporate Misbehaviour), SLR investments, 170 36–7 Smith, A., 16, 215, 242, 243, 263n7 Said, E., 9, 33 Smith, J., 34 Saillard, Y., 262n5 Smith, S., 221, 226, 239n3, n6 Salamon, L., 46 Smith, T., 5 Salariul 110 Euro (Romanian Social Accountability International documentary), 81 (SAI), 220 Sandu, D., 85–6, 89–90 Santillo, D., 190 social intermediation Saravanamuttu, P., 163n1 Bennet’s definition, 166 Sardar Sarovar, 213–14 subsidization, 167 Satyam Computers, 6 social movements, 34, 132, 134 Saunders, M., 71 social protest, Scribano and Schuster Saward, M., 61 on unaffiliated forms of, 132 Sawyer, S., 5 social responsibility, Campbell’s Scharlin, P. J., 250 criteria, 189 Schengen visa regime, 85 Sokolowski, W., 46 Scherrer, C., 18n5 SOLO-U (Society for Love and Schmitz, H., 222 Understanding), 156 Scholte, J. A., 223 Soskice, D., 2 Schor, J. B., 18n3 South Africa, 4 Schuster, F., 132 business for peace initiatives, 156 Scotia Employee Volunteer South African agriculture Programme, 44 changes in, 224 Scribano, A., 132 employment hierarchy, 229 Seidman, G. W., 223 gender/ethnicity discrimination, self-determination, scholarly 229–30 theorizing on, 131 health and safety improvements, self-regulation, 15–16, 143 228–9 PROOF

278 Index

South African agriculture – continued Steinberg, E., 3 traditional employment Stiglitz, J. E., 166 arrangements, 224 Stocker, M., 257 unionization, 229 Stout, D., 263n14 Women on Farms Project, 232 sub-prime mortgage crisis, 31 Special Economic Zones (SEZs), Sukhinda Valley, Eastern India, 202 India, 203 Sun Microsystems, 32 Spence, L. J., 8 supermarkets Spieczny, M., 136 ethical commitment, 236 Sri Lanka UK, see UK supermarkets business for peace initiatives, and working conditions, 222, 225 152, 155 surplus value appropriation, 208 failed reform agenda, 161 sustainability, 17, 69, 161–3, 169, 178 fast-tracked legislation, 158 Sustainable Banking with the Poor High Court ruling, 193–4 (World Bank), Bennett on, 166 IMF review, 157–8 sustainable development, Canadian negotiations with global promotion, 43 institutions, 158–9 sustainable growth, Coca-Cola’s PRSP document, 159–60 plans, 183 United National Party, 13, 152–3, Swaminathan, P., 206 157, 160–2 sweatshops, 36 Sri Lanka First, 156 Sweeney, D., 65, 67, 69 Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), 153 Sri Lankan civil war, 149 Tambogrande, Peru, 117 change in business lobby’s stance, 155 Tamil Tigers, 149–50, 154–5, 157–8 collapse of the peace process, 150 Tassel, Van E., 166 and the economic structure, 151 Tata Group key players in the peace process, 157 CSR awards, 202 phases, 149–50 land grabbing activities, 202–3 policy formulation and donor profit enhancement and land processes, 157–8 acquisition, 209 Tamil Tigers, 149–50, 154–5, 157–8 protests against, 202–3 and taxation of the private state subsidization, 205–6 sector, 154 Tata Tea, employee buy-out, 19n12 and the UNP, 152–3 Taylor, J., 63 Srivastava, A., 197n17,22 Taylor, J. E., 82 Srivastava, P., 179n7 Taylor, J. G., 250 stabilization clauses, 35 TCC (transnational capitalist class), 9, stakeholders 28, 38–40 bargaining power, 72 technological innovation, and income definition, 91–2 distribution, 211 importance of employees as, 92 Teitelbaum, E., 163n7 influence on corporate Tesco, and ethical trade in South behaviour, 61 Africa, 232 wealth-creation input, 91 Theron, J., 225, 239n2 Stanley, A. D., 256, 263n15 Thomas, D. C., 246 Starbucks, 4, 32 Tilly, C., 112 Starr, A., 32 Total CSR, Carroll’s definition, 91 PROOF

Index 279 trade unions, 15, 64, 86, 160, 195, Venugopal, R., 12, 13, 148–63, 254 219–20, 223, 225, 229, 231–3, verification, Shell’s pioneering of, 30 235–6 Vickerman, A., 69 transnational corporations, media video conferencing, 34 representation, 28–9 violence transnational practices, 28 of capital accumulation, 201, 209 transnational social space Tata’s involvement, 202–3 anti-corporatist, 35 Visthapan Virodhi Jan Manch as characteristic of globalization, 9, (People’s Forum Against 27, 34–5 Displacement), 203 emancipatory potential, 37 volunteer activity, Salamon and and the spread of information, 36 Sokolowski’s study, 46 Trebeck, K., 10, 60–75, 252 volunteer work in Canada, 9–10 Triggs, G., 70 effects of employer support, 48–56 triple-bottom line accounting, 43, 45 employed population’s Trouillot, M.-R., 7 contribution, 47 TRIPS, 211 formal activities, 49 Turner, J., 88 men’s rates, 52 organizations’ satisfaction levels UK (United Kingdom), FDI outflow, 3 with employer support, 56 UK supermarkets Scotiabank programme, 44 ETI membership, 225–6 sector overview, 46–8 recognition of WIETA, 236 value of different forms of employer WIETA membership, 231 support, 53 UN (United Nations), 4, 6 women’s rates, 51 Unilever, 29 Vorster, J., 224, 225 Union Carbide, 6, 19 universal human rights, Roman Wallerstein, I., 3 precursor, 37 Wal-Mart, 6, 36 UNP (United National Party), Sri Wapner, P., 251 Lanka, 13, 152–3, 157, 160–2 war, and capitalist globalization, uranium mining 37–8 in Australia, 10 Warhurst, A., 73 social and environmental War on Want, 232 impacts, 63 water, and human rights, 188 see also Jabiluka mine prevention water resources, Coca-Cola’s campaign sustainability initiatives, 184 US (United States) wealth-creation, stakeholder agricultural subsidization, 35 participation, 91 FDI outflow, 3 Wear Company Ltd, 81 reliance on corporate community Weiss, A., 166 contributions, 8 welfare state, Tilly on the, 112 Uyangoda, J., 163n1 Wickremasinghe, Ranil, 152, 155 Wicks, A. C., 91 Vaidyanathan, A., 179n6 WIETA (Wine Industry and value chains, governance of, 222 Agriculture Ethical Trade Van Schendelen, M., 29 Association) van Tulder, R., 250 accreditation process, 233–4 Varian, H., 166 expansion, 233 PROOF

280 Index

WIETA – continued Women on Farms Project (WoF), 232 labour contracting audit, 233 women’s organizations, perceptions of locally focused approach, 235 discrimination against, 57 local stakeholder engagement Wood, E. M., 264n19 approach, 230–1 Woods, W., 142, 144 membership, 231, 236 workers’ cooperatives, Argentine, see objectives, 232 empresas recuperadas (ERs) UK supermarkets’ support for, workers’ rights, ETI principles, 226 232, 236 working conditions, civil society’s Wilderness Society, 63, 65–7, 75 influence, 222–3, 225 Williams, C., 61 World Bank (WB), 26, 83, 86, 100, Wilson, R., 70 158, 163–4, 166, 188 Windebank, J., 61 World Economic Forum, 34 Wolff, D. W., 208 World Heritage, 61–2, 64–5 Wolff, R. D., 208 World Social Forum, 34 women Wright, S., 223 corporate support levels, 9, 43, Wright, T., 67, 70 49, 57 WTO (World Trading discrimination against, 6, 57, 229 Organization), 34 organizations, 49–50 Wydick, B., 179n16 in South African agriculture, 224–5 Yanacocha, 108 special needs, 42 Young, I., 74 in the textile and clothing industry, 88 Zamfir, C., 84 volunteer rates, 50 Zeno the stoic, 37