# data[].attributes.body
In this article, Benson and Kirsch do an amazing job at examining the use of corporate oxymorons as a tool for managing and neutralizing critique, but also for validating corporate agendas of global expansion. The discussion revolves around language and the way in which it is being used by certain governments and corporations, with the purpose of promoting ambiguity and uncertainty about their real implications in the global environment.

Authors such as George Orwell  (2003,[1949]) and Deluxe and Guattari (1983, 1987)

have warned about the power of language to influence critical thinking and to filter reality. Orwell talks about ‘the fictional language of the state’ and describes the way in which contradictory terms are combined to give new meanings to otherwise criticized concepts, illustrating the acceptance of such language as a process he calls ‘doublethink’. Deluxe and Guattari empathize on how governments, and especially corporations, use ‘coding’ and ‘over-coding’ in order to give new meanings to particular words. Moreover, they highlight the way in which ideologies and worldviews are expressed through figures of speech, that over time (and with more use) become colloquial. Some of the examples they used were collateral damage which replaces civilian casualties or enhanced interrogation which translates to torture.

I think the use of this type of language overtime is extremely problematic, as it separates words from their real meaning and creates a false narrative of what reality is. By engaging with the illusionary tales of progress and development that are being pushed towards us by these greater powers , we fail to address the real issues that are still boiling on the surface of our planet. Acknowledging the way in which they use this type of language can make us more aware of tension points and of where corporations and governments are in fact falling short.

Ioana Illes (677134)

# data[].attributes.body
It is quite disheartening to understand that despite companies like Food Co basing their business  on a value-system that they feel makes a difference (mutuality), they are still reproducing a form of capitalism that is at odds with sustainability.
Ultimately then, if 'sustainable growth' is an oxymoron, we would need a revolution to change the business paradigm we seem to be stuck into. This however, seems very unlikely at this time.

What we are doing clearly does not work, and it is important for anthropologists to deconstruct business-led initiatives to show that. But if the solution is not going to come from businesses, it still has to 'go through' businesses. Should anthropologists not help provide the answers rather than keep on asking questions?

It feels we still need to find better ways of doing business today to ease our businesses into a new system while reducing their environmental impact. So, if not mutuality, then what?

- Marie

Response
‘Should anthropologists not help provide the answers rather than keep on asking questions?’ – really agree with you/think about this often. I have three brief comments:

1)    there is the ethical dilemma of providing ‘answers’ that (to an extent, understandably) concern anthropologists/alike…

2)    anthropologists/similar often provide answers through their questions, but the answers do not reach enough people (issues of academic publishing, academia itself, etc). And then some people do not wish to listen to the answers: the answers do not match their interests (profit via sustainable growth, etc), or they challenge the ‘psychosis’ of euro-western societies (psychosis produced/maintained by colonialism/capitalism, see Andrews, 2016) … and so on…

3)    As an answer to you, my personal thoughts/feelings is that anthropologists should stay asking questions but ramp up their disruption and public education (easier said than done, of course), particularly on matters such as these.

Andrews, K. 2016. The psychosis of whiteness: the celluloid hallucinations of amazing grace and belle. Journal of Black Studies, 47:5. 435-453.

Jacob Heath 685615

Response by Priyanka 683580

Marie I quite agree with your point on shouldn't anthropologist do more than just asking questions. I think sometimes with respect to positionality, we may not be giving enough credit to our own position and skills in the human social-network. Across articles we read there is the CSR business agenda and then perhaps there is victimised beneficiary dragged into the capitalistic circuit in the name of responsible capitalism (CSR). However, more and more  corporations are and do bring on board social-scientist. As a social scientist working in development on-ground, comes with ethical responsibility. However, our training actually offers us the unique position to understand the needs, culture perspective of the beneficiary as well as the corporate. Perhaps what we can do, is be bridges, for as ethnographers technically we also train ourselves to speak the language of each party. A little like marriage counselling. We could be informed ethical bridges with strategic directions to add back humanity to the process of development. That perhaps is what I also felt my role was to bridge the gap between on-ground reality and the board room when I worked in CSR. While of course there are boardrooms like Jacob points out that don't want to listen there are also those that do.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is hidden by the concept of ‘partnership’?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is hidden by the concept of ‘partnership’?

# data[].attributes.body
Meagher criticises frugal innovation initiatives, arguing that rather than collaboration, they are a form of exploitation or ‘cannibalism’. As she points out, the very idea of frugal innovation relies on ideas of partnership, inclusion and collaboration. It is supposed to be a win-win for both formal and informal economies: multinational corporations can offer the missing resources and investment in informal economies, while informal economies offer a space for market expansion, as well as local knowledge and infrastructure to reduce the costs of innovation.

In reality, only the latter is true. In the process of capturing the profits and reducing their own costs, corporations tend to transform informal economies in a negative way. Not only is their social capital appropriated, but they are made ‘legible’, which often erodes their institutional structures. These dynamics show the concept of ‘partnership’ in a very different light.

This is very similar to the argument that Rajak puts forth regarding the power dynamics of the CSR, and the ways in which the notion of ‘partnership’ disguises unequal power relations. It seems that in CSR and BoP initiatives the notion of ‘partnership’ tends to cloak the continuation of unequal power relations.

Edda (667994)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/16/health/brazil-obesity-nestle.html, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/16/health/brazil-obesity-nestle.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Entrepreneurship at the BoP - a corporate oxymoron?

# data[].attributes.subject
Entrepreneurship at the BoP - a corporate oxymoron?

# data[].attributes.body
I really liked this article, in particular, the way it has shown how the discourses on BoP have cleverly used the language of entrepreneurship, agency and autonomy in order to “sell” what is essentially a capitalist framework that eventually ends up favoring only those at the top of the pyramid. What is interesting is that these are exactly the same discursive practices adopted by new age companies in the gig economy such as Uber, where the drivers are constantly told that that they are entrepreneurs (not employees) who can control of their time, their resources and the money they make, when the reality is far from that. This article led me to think about “entrepreneurship at the BoP” as a corporate oxymoron (Benson and Kirsch, 2010) – and ask - what does such an understanding of the term call attention to and what does it distract from? How can discourses on capitalism / BoP benefit from such an anthropological critique?
-Anuradha-

Eleni (686974) in response to Anuradha:

This article also made me think about the 'empowerment capitalism' which is essentially taking advantage of productive power of the youth in order to not only 'greenwash' their organisational values but fully monopolise in these markets of unequal power. Also, by cultivating this type of entrepreneurship which essentially is a relationship of reliance on the big corporate players, individuals' empowerment is built upon fake power promises and makes it even harder for them to develop their own values and business endeavours for the future.

# data[].attributes.headline
Protesting Corporate Funding of the Arts - not directly CSR but similar ways in which companies reposition their image

# data[].attributes.subject
Protesting Corporate Funding of the Arts - not directly CSR but similar ways in which companies reposition their image

# data[].attributes.body
Artist Nan Goldin leads die-in at V&A over use of Sackler name | Nan Goldin | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.headline
The Vatican jumping on the 'inclusive capitalism' bandwagon

# data[].attributes.subject
The Vatican jumping on the 'inclusive capitalism' bandwagon

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/business-leaders-join-pope-francis-promote-council-inclusive-capitalism-2020-12

# data[].attributes.body
in brief words, the article presents how sometimes, corporations' plans that aim to maintain ethics and sustainability often engender newer issues regarding the latter.
The example used regarding mining in Chile affecting the glassiers presents changes that can be made in order to best attempt to prevent such issues.
-Riwa

Response to Riwa by Bo Yang,

Yes, responsibility and ethics are classified as profitable products in its 'value' market. Just like any other products in their supply chains, responsibility will also trigger competition, growth, innovation and more just like or relation to economic/marketing rationalities. New products of 'responsibility' will be produced and reproduced, never stop.

# data[].attributes.body
This article brought up a number of interesting considerations in a simple but clear way. First thing that stood out for me was how much of Women Empowerment Programs, especially those in the global south, have been on the basis of empowering women because they are potential actors in the global economic market; an investment with a possibly high return on investment. That is why most programs view access to wage employment as key in empowering women. Even then, most fail to acknowledge other drivers of poverty and inequality that exist even when women have access to wage labour
opportunities.
-Sarah Kazira

# data[].attributes.body
https://bcorporation.eu/about-b-corps

This site features brands such as Triodos Bank, Patagonia, Ecosia Search Engine and many more.

"Certified B Corporations are businesses that meet the highest standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability to balance profit and purpose. B Corps are accelerating a global culture shift to redefine success in business and build a more inclusive and sustainable economy. Society’s most challenging problems cannot be solved by government and nonprofits alone. The B Corp community works toward reduced inequality, lower levels of poverty, a healthier environment, stronger communities, and the creation of more high quality jobs with dignity and purpose. By harnessing the power of business, B Corps use profits and growth as a means to a greater end: positive impact for their employees, communities, and the environment. B Corps form a community of leaders and drive a global movement of people using business as a force for good. The values and aspirations of the B Corp community are embedded in the B Corp Declaration of Interdependence." (675638)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.fairwear.org/about-us/labour-standards (675638)

# data[].attributes.body
I found the sheer number of theorists that examined the power of language in this article to tackle corporate slogans fascinating. Benson and Kirsch seemed to circle around Orwell's double-think to conceptualize corporate slogans as 'oxymorons'.

I was expecting to see how they will unpack CSR language further, through for example Deleuze's 'over-coding', of which I felt they only scratched the surface. Similarly, they could have invoked some of Zizek's later arguments along the lines of his usual "Starbucks model" of business. Nevertheless, it was fun to remember Trump's speech on 'clean coal'.

Moustafa

# data[].attributes.body
What happens when a corporation is as powerful as a state? What does corporate 'Social Responsibility' elicit and (re)produce? These were questions that kept coming to me as I was reading how Rajak examines CSR's transformation from 'movement' to discourse.

[added later - completely forgot it is incomplete]

Filling the market gap evoked questions along the lines of what happens when corporations construct themselves (or even believe) that they can correct for market errors (through CSR)?

Perhaps what I found the most interesting in this reading is how Rajak conceptualizes CSR as 'social investment' which implies how she constructs its discursive nature.

-Moustafa-

Responding
I agree, while the study of the CSR was very detailed and the relationship between Anglo, the CSR team and the community examined from a number of interesting angles, I wanted to know where the government was in all this. Are we just to assume they are more powerful than the state? I also found it interesting that the company had manage to survive the transition from apartheid to post-apartheid and CSR seemed to be a ways of managing that change through funding education of those they considered "entrepreneurial" or able to fit future roles in the company. Those  who don't fit the mould are deemed unworthy of funding or attention.

Susie Brand

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the introduction and Ch.6 of Rajak's ethnographic account, what stayed with me was the terminology. The adjectives associated with CSR's as: "Human face of capitalism"; "compassionate capitalism"; "moral purpose"; "Humanised approach to development"; "corporate colonialism & industrial philanthropy"; "age of responsible capitalism";"new era of responsible capitalism"; and as the process of. "moral purification". Coming across as cynical in ethos; perhaps even justified with evidence for it; as CSR offers a pathway for Brands to humanise their archetype, I wonder if in this discourse there are nuances to this relationship between corporates and development that are missed; that perhaps may be beneficial to both parties and genuinely offer a path of sustainable supportive eco-systems and funds to test innovative solutions? Rajak too seems to hint at the existence of this parallel discourse.

BY PRIYANKA K. 683580

I agree, and feel the cynicism is justified, but do feel that there is opportunity in not solely focussing on opposition. I think one of the key issues is the lack of examples for what 'good' looks like, and who decides that?  Clare 677349

In response to Priyanka and Clare:

I also think it would be useful to hear of good examples.

“For critics, however, CSR represents at best an empty promise or a case of

emperor’s new clothes; at worst a Trojan Horse cloaking the market in morality, all while companies pursue their own profit-hungry interests and avoid regulation under the guise of benefactors. Thus critics work to expose the

gap between the rhetoric of responsible capitalism and the truth about corporate

irresponsibility.” p.11

With the quote in mind, I have a few general questions:

- consider the economic model: what are the positive outcomes of capitalism? (e.g. freedom, democracy, good education, long life expectancy)

- consider demand and speed: how can demands be met? (acknowledge that there is a demand: growth simply means increased demand)

- consider size of corporations: can any large operation ever be sustainable?

If CSR is a Trojan horse, cloaking the market in morality, which alternative model should we pursue? (Anna, 675638)

Responding to Anna

One which properly taxes corporations and demands they pay their employees a fair wage. This allows elected governments to look after all their citizens, not just those deemed worthy and for employees to have proper autonomy not rely on charity from benefactors for basics like education, health and housing.

Susie

Response to Susie

Of course, this would be the desired  scenario. I would just wonder how easily this could be translated into reality/ practice when demand, size and time frame (speed of growth) are inevitable technicalities. Therefore my question: can any large operation ever be sustainable? (Anna, 675638)

Response to all:
In terms of alternative models, one thing I've observed in my experience in the corporate world is that many organisations are still doing CSR as we've mainly been talking about it here - 'programmes' targeting specific areas, trying to 'do some good' or improve their reputation. But some (not enough) organisations have started to take honest looks at how their operations run and the social, economic, environmental impact of their work. Some of them seek to fundamentally transform how they work and are doing a lot of work that's not visible in these spaces. A lot of this has been driven by employee demand, since employees are increasingly vocal about the kinds of places they want to work. However - nearly always these 'good' efforts are typically thwarted by short term market pressures, driven by investors and stock markets. So until the model is fundamentally reconsidered - ie the power of the stock market in shaping how corporations operate day to day - real change is difficult. -Karen

# data[].attributes.headline
Another proof that business as usual is no good

# data[].attributes.subject
Another proof that business as usual is no good

# data[].attributes.body
I found very interesting how the language at the same time acknowledges a problem and deceive consumers not only that the power does not exist, but also that the problem is actually a good thing (“sustainable mining”). Corporate oxymoron are very powerful in this use of language. As black boxes that do not need to be investigated, they help corporations to keep doing “business as usual”. It comes to my mind a speech by Latour (2015) in which he argues against ecomodernism, claiming that it tries to conciliate irreconcilable movements (thus an oxymoron) with the aim of promoting “business as usual”. I guess that what we learn from the existence itself of corporate oxymoron is that business as usual is not really a good/sustainable option (otherwise there would be no need for oxymoron!). Very interesting as well the relation between corporate oxymoron and the politics of resignation.
- Sarah M.

# data[].attributes.body
Very interesting piece! It perfectly exposes the hypocrisy and self-interest behind CSR. For example, when one of the engineers explains that “while [engineers] can make recommendations based on “good practice” guidelines, companies will not adopt them unless it is considered cost-efficient” (64). I wonder… the same way that there is no such a thing as “responsible mining”, is there not such a thing as “responsible revenue”? I guess that is the role states are suppose to play as mediators between companies and people (compensating the companies -e.g. less taxes- if they ‘sacrifice’ part of their incomes for social benefit). I studied this long time ago in high school - the state as a regulator - but I don’t think it stands for what is really happening now. How can states get that role back? What can be real incentives for the companies to see beyond short-term revenues and truly promote altruist CSR? Laura Torres

Answer to Laura
I haven’t read Li, but what you mentioned about the hypocrisy and sel-interest behind CRS well resonates with Rajak’s article. Rajak shows how CRS resonate as the gift exchange. On one side it gives the subtle idea of solidarity, trust and commitment between the donors (the mining corporation) and the receiver (the community); in reality it increases paternalism, patronage and control on the side of the corporation. In this case, I cannot see how CRS can depend on altruism. In terms of the role of the state, Benson describes how impotant is the role of the “politics of resignation” (“a tendency toward cynicism in political life”) legitimizes corporate power. So you are right, the disconnection (or absence) of the state in this relation is an important aspect! Rajak, as well, concludes claiming that as long as CRS is voluntary, so not based on obligation, CRS will only reinforce an benefit the corporations. So it seems that the answer to your “how can state get that role back” would be through legislations and obligations. Now, are states willing or able to enforce that?
- Sarah M.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mutuality as an innovative shift into 'ethical' capitalism?

# data[].attributes.subject
Mutuality as an innovative shift into 'ethical' capitalism?

# data[].attributes.body
What does it mean to say that corporations are becoming ‘more’ ethical if all economic action is necessarily grounded in ethical life, and made available for moral judgement? (p.36)

While the opportunities provided by mutuality - as a distinctive corporate value; as a competitive market principle; as ‘empowerment’;  ‘shareholder value’ - in strategy and value chain management are acknowledged, the authors identify its limitations, as it does not serve to challenge conventional approaches to capitalism, the organisation of life around the principle of competition or the ‘capitalising gaze’  that apprehends assets and relationships in terms of their capacity to produce earnings in the future.

How is the then the 'mutuality talk' aiming to overcome the impossibility of 'sustainable growth'?

Eleni 686974

# data[].attributes.body
This paper was insightful in how BoP initiatives reward themselves as transforming jobless youths into young entrepreneurs as a moral transformation, “to change one’s life”. They congratulate themselves as a vital method for “turning social crisis into economic employment”, as the possibility of success transforms youth into “productive citizens” in that preventing them from causing harm and civil unrest. This made me think about the terminology associated with CSR used in Rajak’s ethnography (‘age of responsible capitalism’, ‘compassionate capitalism’, ‘human face of capitalism’). As although initiatives, such as Catalyst, offer entrepreneurial agency to people at the BoP they are still selling products in a capitalist agenda which inevitably help those at the top. These ‘Impressionable’ youths are taught also not simply how to sell products but how to transform themselves with entrepreneurial skills, with essences of self-help and self-empowerment. Teaching them to uptake what came to my mind as a western ‘entrepreneurial habitus’ and attitude of professionalism, including skills, dress, style and speech.
-Rebecca Luff

Response to Rebecca
Agreed. It would be interesting (though almost impossible, I guess) to 'study up' those 'at the top', and how these processes of 'compassionate capitalism' are put into practice.

# data[].attributes.body
The ambiguity of the language/buzzwords, and fluid concepts that surround CSR, are ripe for (mis)interpretation. This feels like the biggest hurdle that needs to be overcome if we are to move forward with accountability, regulations and proper governance.

"The company can thus successfully remain detached
from the local population not in spite of the language of ‘partnership’ and ‘participation’, but
because of it." Clare 677349

# data[].attributes.body
This article brings the emphasis (in my opinion, correctly) on the commonality in language between States and corporations.  What I do not like about this paper however is the impression that it plays up these sort of linguistic operations as if they are the prerogative of corporations - in my opinion, this tweaks the eye to activism more than analytics - although sure there are analytical elements involved, the whole argument does remain a political operation.   For example, the term 'safe drugs' is of actual import in these times, and it involves both private corps, governments and populations; another field of application is 'cyclical expenditure', which involves accumulating (generational) debt to boost current economies.  'Clean energy' and 'clean cars' are additional examples, where the clean gives the impression that once the fuel is taken away from the equation, all will be fine.  And of course, intelligent bombing in the case of most Middle East military involvement.    There are very few activities that involve no harm or fallout (however codified) and there are forms of fundamental linguistic censorship  that applies to both stakeholders.  I believe the difference between States and corporations though, with regards to who receives benefits and who bears the harms.  Corporations are in the business of privatising benefits and collectivising harms; the inability of the state to function to regulate those harms is quite clearly in view, so the language ultimately justifies a position beyond consumers but also racks up consensus for weakening the regulatory tools in the hands of Governments.  States on the other hand should be in the business of collectivising both benefits and harms, and this shoudl be regulated via the political process, however by pointing the finger to corporations, the responsibilities of the State somehow fall outside scrutiny, which is more important than ever.
[added later] Of course this is a CSR lecture and the paper fits right in this context, however I wonder whether the larger theme of 'social responsibility' would also be of relevance for sustainability; it also strikes me that all State examples are in defense, which may not be a coincidence. I am not sure who got first to oxymoron operations - State or corps - maybe this is a theme for the 'Lecture' column
/ Emanuela.

# data[].attributes.body
I like the article and term ‘corporate oxymorons’ BUT I think it obscures the actual violence of markets. Why not just call it what it is – a lie. Lies which have undergone marketisation to make ‘trade’ through a capitalist market more acceptable for consumers.

Take Fair Trade. I would not say Fair Trade is worse than the 'trade' that existed before it. But it is a corporate oxymoron: a marketized lie.

Fair Trade has not alleviated the difficulties coffee farmers face - they still struggle due to factors that Fair Trade cannot control… including rising production and consumption costs, wage-labour costs and declining productivity that siphons away profits even

when prices are good… The flexibility of the peasant household to mend and patch together a disarticulated capitalist market by stretching out their resources, self-exploiting and self-provisioning, enables them to continue producing coffee for the Fair Trade market even when it is unprofitable [for them] … (Wilson, 2010), i.e., they still suffer due to being in a market that operates through capitalism (wish to note that there are sometimes exceptions to this).

Below article was an eye opener for me at undergrad and an example of what lies behind corporate oxymorons: marketized lies:

Wilson, B. R. 2010. Indebted to fair trade: coffee and crisis in Nicaragua. Geoforum. 41. 84-92.

685615 Jacob Heath

Marie's response to Jacob -
I did have the feeling that "lies, lies lies, it's all lies" is basically the gist of  the article. The term corporate oxymoron is a way for me to intellectualise the above statement and make it more penetrable in academia. Now we have a fancy term to articulate what we feel (that it's all lies) in a theoretical manner without suffering from what people could perceive as an emotional response? I don't think this article would have a better impact in academia if it just came out and said "LIARS"... I find it successful in its aims and am glad to have a workable theoretical concept with which we can denounce the lies you mention!

# data[].attributes.body
In this article I was struck by the proliferation of military phrases or linguistic methods that enter everyday discourse, be it around the corporate oxymorons that Benson describes, in analyses of the market (known knowns, unknown knowns etc.) or in discussion of food production (e.g. Paxson’s ‘Black Boxes’ and the biopolitics of consumption). This is a broader point on the omnipresence of a militaristic framework or understanding in far-reaching, often seemingly innocuous, elements of our daily life. This seems more palatably packaged through corporate oxymorons for the Western consumer but is laid bare in the neoliberal ‘sustainable development’ exercised on the Global South, such as seen with last week’s GMO debates.

Eloise

# data[].attributes.headline
Oversimplification of agency and choice?

# data[].attributes.subject
Oversimplification of agency and choice?

# data[].attributes.body
This eye-opening article tackles a number of issues concerning neoliberalism, women empowerment and the making of markets through the promotion of the liberated, entrepreneurial individual. What I had not realised before was how damaging the discourse of Western ideals of agency imposed by development agencies and corporations can be, and how this reconfiguration of the freedom to desire is conceived as a way to create more consumers in new untapped markets. Not only does the fixation on such capitalist-centric solutions to resolve poverty obscure wider structural and global inequalities and places the onus on the poor and vulnerable to lift themselves out of poverty, but it fundamentally reengineers social and gender relations with implications for communal and kinship structures in developing countries. At the same time, do we also risk oversimplifying the complexities and nuances of people’s aspirations and desires by assuming their lack of agency and choice in embracing a Western notion of the individualised self and engaging in the vision peddled by multinationals of a homogenised global market?
- Sheu Jeen

# data[].attributes.body
The oxymorons help companies and governments hide the negative effects of their profit-seeking activities or bridge the real gap between their activities and the politically correct discourse. But how effective can such oxymorons be? For example, is the slogan "healthy cigarettes" well enough to make people convinced of the relation between smoking and healthy? Or, more importantly, that people don't care about the truth at all? As the author also mentioned Zizek's critique of today's reality of cynicism. People know the truth, but don't care, or have been tamed by a more fundamental and systematic discourse. The "Peacekeeper Missile", for example, could be supported by an ideology like "peace cannot be guaranteed without weapons and armies", which is espoused by governments and arms dealers. For the oxymorons to work, both corporations and governments may need a more basic, long-term functioning ideology to support them, and that is probably where ethnography is needed.
-Zhenyuan Fang

I completely agree that much of the rhetoric in corporate oxymorons rests upon existing ideology for its impact. I still think, however, that the form this ideology takes in corporate dialogue is worth studying in its own right. This study may, in turn, provide us with deeper insight about broader social ideology as a whole.

Maria - 687047

# data[].attributes.body
I was fascinated by Gardner's article. The idea of creating a disconnect and hiding it through the language of sustainability seems inherently duplicitous. It made me see 'capacity building' which I had always seen as a good thing in a very different and far more insidious light.
- Georgia 686396

Response to Georgia
I definitely agree with you. Gardner's article definitely demonstrated that various concepts, including 'capacity building' and 'partnership' have lost their meaning in the context of CSR. To me, partnership implies an ongoing, equal relationship, while capacity building implies a bottom-up approach. But as Gardner work showed, the Chevron's approach was the opposite.

Edda (667994)

# data[].attributes.body
The article examines the promotion of corporate oxymorons that conceal the actual harm caused by corporations to people and the environment. This highlights the subtle use of literary tools to respond to critique and weakly claim accountability to then continue the trajectory of business as usual.  Deleuze and Guttari’ 1(983) idea of coding and over coding attributes meaning of value to injustice.  This article reminded me of the realities of the fast fashion industry. Many retailers use words of ‘organic’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘conscious’ to appeal to the conscience of consumers who like to think they are ‘doing their bit’ by spending a bit more for these so called ‘sustainable’ ranges of fashion. Global fashion corporations deploy greenwashing tactics to appeal to conscious consumers whilst exploiting garment factory workers- of whom we see regular reports of their poor conditions. The article illustrates how the power of language  divorces semantic realities from social realities and further deepens the existing inequality in marginalized communities.
Mah 644393

# data[].attributes.body
Prior to doing this week’s readings I had been highly sceptical of CSR. I tried to keep an open mind whilst reading Rajak’s ethnography on the South African city of Rustenberg and its mines, however, these chapters only confirmed my initial suspicions. The narratives of some of the workers at Anglo-American strongly reinforced racist stereotypes, as well as ideas of neocolonialism and neoliberalism, with statements like:

“This process of individual transformation promises to ‘break the poverty culture of un-

employed people; extinguish bad traits (those behavioural patterns of South Africans that perpetuate poverty cycles) and foster entrepreneurial qualities’.”

I thought the chapters were well-written and easily digestible for someone with no background in development. Nonetheless, I would have expected Rajak to challenge and be more critical of some of these narratives.

Hanna Arro

# data[].attributes.body
What particularly struck me reading this ethnography of Anglo American's CSR strategy in Rustenburg was the notion of instrumentality, which has emerged time and again throughout this course, including last term. Rajak touches on the idea that, under the guise of CSR, poverty is exploited and utilised as an opportunity to 'empower the corporation' (p 213). Rajak distinguishes between social and investment and gift giving, noting that the letter pulls binds recipients into the expectation of gratitude and reciprocity, which ultimately serves the interests of the corporation. I think it might be revealing to draw a parallel here with Naomi Klein's concept of disaster capitalism. She draws on the notion of instrumentality to think about private enterprise profiteering from humanitarian suffering.

Claudia

I really like your comparison to Klein, I think the way the temporality works in the comparison is very odd, it's as if crises are spread out in this scenario, supposedly preparing the 'local' for the final crisis of corporations pulling out when the mine runs dry, yet producing a dependency that necessitates having the singular power over them. Too many contradictions, Klein is perfect here.

Skyler

# data[].attributes.body
This article provided apt academic insight into how Big Pharma companies like Johnson and Johnson present themselves as the utmost moral providers of health and wellbeing, despite the dark history they have with the opioid crisis/epidemic. I have been thinking about this recently amidst the pandemic, witnessing how companies have used covid-19 as an opportunity to really emphasise this image of morality through the creation of a vaccine. The language invoked in this advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpFEaX9qAA4 )  for example is one of care-taking, with a strong tone of personal connection, as if Johnson and Johnson are close friends who will take care of us throughout our lives - in doing so the scandals in which they are involved is intricately disguised and hidden from view.

Emma

# data[].attributes.body
I feel amazing about the profitablisation or commercialisation of social responsibility in the idea of CSR. As mentioned in the reading, social responsibility reshaped by market principles.

The point here is hand the social responsibility of multiple stakeholders to the market. Competitiveness will maximise the value of responsibility. Thus, the social responsibility is conceived as no difference with profitable products. It is hard to image that whether all kinds of social responsibility from differentiated groups are not hierarchised. Which responsibility is more or most profitable in this 'responsibility' market? How could they be equalised? Are responsibility different with products produced in established supply chains with reproduced hierarchy?

Bo Yang

# data[].attributes.body
From this paper, I like the sentence "If we take the ontological position that all economic action is necessarily located within a moral calculus of some kind, what sense can be made of the claims that businesses make about becoming increasingly ethical" - as it underlines that all business (paid for or otherwise) involve a 'moral calculus' on benefits vs costs (however determined, it could be risk) , or seen from another viewpoint, profit extraction.  So the hard cash-valued cost-benefit analysis seen from another perspective, that of the 'ethical threshold'.    Some authors argue that the anthropologist cannot set the moral threshold as,  correctly, others would claim that it would be specific and driven by  particular interests.  I agree with this which is why I feel uncomfortable with discussions where the moral line is drawn from activism.   The paper also brings about the idea that mutuality could be the antithesis of the 'market' and therefore taken as the ethical position by anthropologists for that reason,; this would not necessarily qualify as moral position.    /   Emanuela

# data[].attributes.body
'[I]n today's development discourse the desire for freedom - assumed to be a human universal - is reworked as a project designed to promote the freedom to desire.'

This quote perfectly summarises why development agencies' initiatives and CSR can be problematic. Western viewpoints are used to frame issues in the Global South, disregarding the role the Global North has had in creating them. Furthermore, some of the things deemed to be problems are in fact cultural differences, such as kinship. In addition, development projects/CSR have a capitalist focus on profit and economics rather than genuine interest in the wellbeing of those it claims to be helping.

Hannah Abbott (685904)

# data[].attributes.body
Benson & Kirsch’s article provided a nuanced and important linguistic analysis of corporate oxymorons and its parallels to political discourse. It engaged with an issue that has stayed with me throughout these two modules: the power of language. How specific tools and tactics are constructed and used to avoid responsibility and maintain an active ignorance regarding participation in world problems. However, I felt the article remained at a superficially theoretical level, needing deeper analysis of specific companies' oxymoronic strategies/dialogue and how they've affected consumer habits, rhetoric or government policy. The ideas were interesting but not fully developed - more particularised examination was required. Another idea I found interesting was ‘neutralising critique’ and to what extent colloquial dialogue does this without us realising it? Is it only corporations involved in this kind of censorship, or perhaps development as well?

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to Moustafa (further up - I was unable to type under the brilliant example image attached!)

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to Moustafa (further up - I was unable to type under the brilliant example image attached!)

# data[].attributes.body
I agree,  I really enjoyed this paper but would have liked them to have explored it further. What the implications of such deceit are and if and how reader/consumer response to such oxymorons has changed through the years. I would like to believe that millennials, for example, would be much more aware of the hypocrisy and lies of corporations. Language is powerful but so is knowledge.

Hannah Abbott (685904)

# data[].attributes.body
I like how the Introduction explored  this 'gap', asking questions that sought to untangle the web of what is said and what is done. I agree with Rajak's conclusion that CSR 'plays a fundamental role in sustaining corporate capitalism', but would be interested to know more of her thoughts on alternative economies in which CSR would not be needed at all.

Will 676615

# data[].attributes.body
I find Rajak's approach specifically very compelling, his, "Through a multi-sited ethnography, I track the trans-local dimensions of
a transnational mining corporation in pursuit of the slippery notion of CSR,". Matching the way in which corporations expand transnationally, he gives visceral descriptions and comparisons of place in a way almost no-one except maybe company bureaucrats would  be able to, tracing the 'sustainable' unsustainability. It's a challenging thing to discuss 'competition' in the lens of CSR as corporations describe a 'partnership' specifically rooted in its enforcing dependency, giving people livelihood yet not valuing that livelihood against anything but the most cynical views of local 'post-colonial' life ways- the 'dance to the death' of development left to a subservient and collaborationist state. The giving of HIV drugs only to employees of the companies reminds me of the 'good faith' of giving a free college degree to employees at my Starbucks or friends in the military, (their soul purpose for working/joining in many cases) except with the twist of life and death- building a 'community' off an uneven dependence. The dark story about the children's birthday party and their need for water then stands as the clearest show of the way certain concessions which should be given already are withheld and then given in a swift act of moral superiority- we are better than this, better than our competitors, better than the state itself, who will not even provide you this- the impossibility of reciprocal return which produces inherent dependence.

Response by Brigid
It is definitely a relationship of dependence and a very uncomfortable one at that. We talk about the 'moral economy' as a positive form of capitalism. Here, the company explicitly 'reinvent a moral economy of patronage and dependency' (p.28). It is always someone's morals. One of the other issues here is the idea that "a job is better than no job at all", so people go and work for these companies out of little choice- and perhaps a moral obligation. There is little alternative.

# data[].attributes.body
I found this a very interesting exploration of the complexities of CSR, and in particular the attempt to present its complexity. As with so much we've spoken about in this term, it's not a simple binary of either good or bad, but lots of grey area. It also did a good job of recognising the different  actors involved rather than presenting the corporation as just one big entity. I thought her portrayal of some of the CSR workers on the ground was quite interesting - portraying them 'in the figure of a

missionary conducting the moral work of the company'. I was reminded of some of our discussions of development workers from last term - in terms of them trying to implement a vision of 'progress' but whose notion of progress? Karen

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed this reading. In particular, through highlighting the importance of language in the production of capitalist ideals, and, therefore, the propagation of capitalist modes of production, Benson & Kirsch clearly demonstrate how anthropologists can be particularly useful when it comes to studying capitalism. Through discursive analysis, anthropologists can work alongside economists and other social theorists to form a cohesive and comprehensive understanding of the capitalist system in which we all exist.

Maria - 687047

# data[].attributes.body
Somehow related - corporations as one of the types of institutions that structure human nature / Emanuela
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5wuB_p63YM

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is far-fetched to call "help" what Anglo has been doing in some instances. Demanding cuts of huge nonexistent costs, delaying/denying funds due to reasons of "bad company performance" (even though aid would be especially critical in times of economic downfall, and they could have saved up in "good" years, as one respondent suggests). I think this sort of messing around with the funds of entrepreneurs wreaks substantial havoc on their incentive. It is true that the corporate universe is harsh on participant, although I do not think, we should introduce the world of entrepreneurship through this skewed lens. This is all but about freedom and self-actualization.

Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
This suspiciously resembles an MLM scheme for me. Participants are treated in a fairly authoritarian and non-empathetic way, signaling that no misunderstanding or temporary uncertainty is allowed. While these rigorous conditions might motivate some, I think it would be best to recognize that human learning is way more about trial and error than preparing and getting it right for the first time. These wannabe entrepreneurs will not learn the ins and outs of ups and downs if they get ejected on the first day when their performance was low.

Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
https://jamboard.google.com/d/1SP_u47DEPrmiIlqdxLDB4nAUzlTc0olBevit17WIXx4/viewer?f=3

# data[].attributes.headline
Radio 4- Positive Thinking- Ending Poverty [10/03/21]

# data[].attributes.subject
Radio 4- Positive Thinking- Ending Poverty [10/03/21]

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000symc

I heard this programme on the radio the day after Catherine's lecture on CSR. Although not explicitly about CSR, the programme made me think about Prahalad's "bottom of the pyramid" theory as the main interviewee proposes to just give money out to the poor. Brigid

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article extremely interesting and relatable having done a volunteer trip in the global south teaching women entrepreneurial skills. I have seen first hand how this can and does help women feel empowered and liberated. However my eyes were opened further to how naive I was when I was away and how actually western ideals may actually be an unproductive and damaging process to women in some cases as they can create consumer markets that are characterised by capitalist and Neo liberal regimes.

these women should be given the opportunity to find their own path and we should not in fact be enforcing westernised practices on them as they may have cultural practices that are more sustainable these women are not thick and should be given the opportunity to develop upon skills they may have already then to conform to a society they we feel need.

In this sense it reminded distinctively of the problems associated with week for and the indigenous communities

- Leanne 653428

# data[].attributes.body
I found the article to be very insightful in understanding the ways in which corporations continue to reproduce a dangerous form of capitalism through a value based system which inherently undermines humanity by equating liberation of historically excluded groups with access to the capitalist system which excluded them in the first place. For example, the framing of empowering women as an economically sound investment due to the potential of women to act in the global economic market with a possible high return on investment felt uncomfortable because it corners the development of gender equality into access to wage employment which seems to simplify the complex issue and assert humanity and inherent human value is tied to economic development and conformity with a western economic approach. As much as we can all appreciate that businesses are trying to shift to a value-system which helps those traditionally excluded by corporations and western economic growth, It feels more like a virtue-signaling attempt at continuing business as usual without properly addressing the root of the issues we are facing and long term sustainable solutions for all.

jakob lewis 686335