In the past few years, the anti-corporate motion (including those opposed to globalization) has gained a bit of steam.
What many people in the motion promote now is called Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), the concept that corporations need to be responsible to all of society and the environment, along with to investors.
It's an embarassment they've gained momentum. After all, without contemporary corporations we would all be poorer, and in specific, few of us could expect to retire easily. More than anything else, modern corporations exist to supply pension income.
Sure, corporations used to be owned by a couple of, very abundant politics liberal vs conservative people. With the prevalent adoption of pension funds and shared funds, corporations now belong primarily to working people.
While it's true the typical working individual has far, far less wealth than the typical billionaire, there are numerous, sometimes more operating people. That implies company and federal government pension plans can invest huge sums of cash into capital stock, making working class individuals the biggest shareholders of many corporations.
From a communication point of view, I'm interested in knowing why Corporate Social Responsibility gets such good media protection and so much attention. I'm likewise thinking about knowing what we, as communicators, can learn from them.
For beginners, the anti-corporate movement has a basic message: "Corporations have too much cash and power; working people do not have enough," or some variation on that theme. On the other hand, my defence of corporations above is anything however easy, although I'm respectable at capturing ideas in words. Did your eyes glaze over as you read my description?
The 'anti' movement also takes pleasure in the luxury https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=Politics of making a great (poor working individuals) versus bad (abundant corporations) argument. That's an ethical argument, one that includes spice to any newspaper article. On the other hand, the 'pro' side works largely with rational discourse and the concepts of economists.
Third, the protestors bring passion to the anti-corporate message. This is a fight of good versus wicked, isn't it? Again, the protectors of contemporary corporations and globalization have to depend on the prosaic science of economic experts.
4th, the label 'Corporate Social Responsibility' also helps the anti-corporate motion. Not only does the name act as a unifying point for its advocates, but it likewise indicates that CSR is a good idea. Who could be versus 'social' and 'duty'?
Now, in spite of their high media profile and ubiquitous presence, the supporters of CSR have a problem. They might be able to win the attention of reporters and editors, however they haven't had much clout with the real decision makers, individuals who run companies, pension plans, and shared funds.
And, the decision makers aren't most likely to be swayed. They comprehend the role of corporations, and they understand where their duties lie. Even widespread public sympathy for CSR isn't likely to have much effect, since they report to investors, not to society as a whole.
So, possibly the last lesson we'll draw from the anti-corporate motion today is that, sometimes, fantastic communication can only take you so far by itself.