Strategic CSR - Values + Guns

I suspect that some CSR commentators have a problem with supporting the idea of values-based business. If you promote such a notion, then you have to give equal credibility to all values and not just the ones that you share. In other words, if you have trouble with the idea of calling Chick-fil-A a values-based business, or do not see that it is every bit as much a values-based business as Patagonia, then you do not support the idea in principle, but some biased version of the idea. Just because you may not agree with the values in question, does not make them any less valid or meaningful to those who do share them – they are just not values to which you ascribe. In line with this argument, the article in the url below places a values-based argument in the context of second amendment rights here in the U.S.:

"Louisiana is using the bond market to stick up for the Second Amendment. The state's bond commission voted 7 to 6 Thursday to ban Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. from working on its upcoming debt sale because of the banks' 'restrictive gun policies,' the state treasury said in a statement. Bank of America and Citigroup are the two top-ranked underwriters of long-term municipal debt, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."
 

The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the 'right' to bear arms) is an important part of this country's history. While I disagree with the modern interpretation of the amendment, and think the NRA's role in politics deliberately distorts the debate in a way that causes harm, I also recognize that there are many people who would disagree with what I just wrote:

 

"'I personally believe the policies of these banks are an infringement on the rights of Louisiana citizens,' Treasurer John Schroder said in a statement. 'As a veteran and former member of law enforcement, I take the Second Amendment very seriously.'"

 

The trouble for large, national companies dealing with guns to any extent (and, in some cases, it can be tangential), is that there are passionate feelings about this issue that vary considerably across the country. This makes implementing a consistent policy very challenging:

 

"The ban is the latest example of how corporate America has been drawn into the nation's polarizing debate over gun control. Earlier this year, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel proposed using the city's business to push for stricter gun controls by limiting work with Wall Street firms that didn't cut ties with companies that sold firearms to people under the age of 21 or dealt in high-capacity magazines. The decision by Louisiana comes after Bank of America in April said it would stop making new loans to companies that make military-style rifles for civilian use. … Citigroup was the first major banking institution to set restrictions on the firearm industry in March, when it announced plans to prohibit retailers that are customers of the bank from offering bump stocks or selling guns to people who haven't passed a background check or are younger than 21."

 

From a Strategic CSR perspective, all this is well and good. In terms of the politicians (as opposed to the companies), what should happen is that, if the citizens of Louisiana do not support the actions their state representatives are taking on their behalf, they should vote them out of office and elect politicians/candidates that better represent their views (and values). Of course, that assumes an engaged electorate, and an honest campaign – in short, a well-functioning democratic system.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (4e)

© Sage Publications, 2017

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/ 

 

 

Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

By Amanda Albright & Jennifer Surane

August 17, 2018

Bloomberg Businessweek

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-17/bofa-citi-banned-from-louisiana-bond-sale-due-to-gun-policies

 

Strategic CSR - Plastic

The article in the url below reports on efforts intended to tackle the environmental damage done by plastics:

 

"Most synthetic polymers — Greek for 'many parts,' because they are long chains of many identical molecules — were not designed to disintegrate or disappear. On the contrary, they were meant to last as long as possible once they began replacing metals and glass in long-lasting things like automobiles and airplanes. But synthetic polymers became so popular and adaptable that decades later, they're at the root of the global burden of billions of tons of plastic waste. … Too little gets recycled; in fact some estimates indicate that a mere 10 percent of all plastics are recycled every year."

 

In response, politicians finally seem to have woken-up to the threat:

 

"The European Union has proposed banning single-use plastics, seeking to cut production of items ranging from fishing gear to cotton swabs. Cities in the United States have also been trying to ban some plastics, including grocery bags and those ubiquitous straws that have suddenly turned into the symbol of all that's wrong with our throwaway culture."

 

In line with this, scientists are now working to try and develop a plastic that disappears on its own:

 

"The environmental effects of plastic buildup and the declining popularity of plastics have helped to spur chemists on a quest to make new materials with two conflicting requirements: They must be durable, but degradable on command. In short, scientists are in search of polymers or plastics with a built-in self-destruct mechanism."

 

And, it is important to emphasize, this would not be a material that merely breaks down in an uncontrolled way, this is a material that deactivates (on exposure to a specific trigger, such as light or acid) in a way that means the residue is of greater value (as long as it is then collected):

 

"The plastic did not simply melt. Its building blocks, the synthetic polymers within, had reverted to their molecular units."

 

The scientists do this by combining fundamentally unstable molecules. In other words, ingredients that previously were overlooked because of this instability are now seen as a solution to the plastics problem because they want to remain separate, which means they gladly revert to their default state when encouraged to do so:

 

"On-demand, rapid disintegration gives unzipping polymers an edge over biodegradable ones … as biodegradation is often slow and difficult to control."

 

The key, then, is to gather up the component parts and reassemble them, making them "chemically recyclable." While the science seems close, however, a remaining issue is cost, which will probably prevent this new plastic from replacing most of the plastic currently in our lives:

 

"Economically speaking, replacing the most widely used polymers like polyethylene (grocery bags), polypropylene (fishing nets) or polyterephthalate (single-use bottles) with unzipping polymers is not feasible. … Instead, scientists … are focusing their attention on higher-value materials like the polyurethane foams commonly found in mattresses and car seats."

 

The key to commercialization, it seems, is for companies to be held responsible for the lifecycle costs of the products they make:

 

"If car companies had to take back a used car, for instance, it might make sense to have an internal chemical recycling system to make new materials from old ones."

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (4e)

© Sage Publications, 2017

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

 

 

A Plastic Designed to Die

By Xiaozhi Lim

August 7, 2018

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

D1

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/science/plastics-polymers-pollution.html

 

Strategic CSR - Shell

The article in the url below reports this headline news from Shell:

 

"Energy giant Royal Dutch Shell is to set carbon emission targets and link them to its executive pay."

 

The headline is a little more encouraging than the reality, however. Rather than a realization within the company that they are producing and selling a product that will help kill us all, it is a decision that has been forced upon them:

 

"The Anglo-Dutch company has made the move after pressure from investors, led by asset manager Robeco and the Church of England Pensions Board."

 

Even worse, they have managed to delay implementation by several years:

 

"Shell will link energy transition and long-term pay, subject to a shareholder vote in 2020."

 

No doubt, it will take Shell a while to respond to the vote, even if it is strongly in favor of this link. And, of course, all the details still need to be worked out:

 

"The firm is still in talks with investors over the precise figures over carbon targets and what percentage of pay might be affected, but it is estimated that as many as 1,300 high-level employees could be involved."

 

In theory, anyway. So, maybe it will be implemented in 2021 or 2022 and, of course, it is long term pay, so there will need to be several years of data before the policy takes effect:

 

"Shell aims to set three- to five-year targets every year which will include specific net carbon footprint targets."

 

So, someone's pay might be affected by 2025 or something like that. Just as well time is on our side! All-in-all, a successful effort by Shell to delay the inevitable:

 

"Last year, shareholders criticised Shell for last year setting long-term 'ambitions' to halve its emissions of carbon dioxide by 2050, which lacked binding targets."

 

All of this follows the firm's decision in 2017 to tie Directors' bonuses to "emissions management" (whatever that means):

 

https://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5N1GM1OD

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (4e)

© Sage Publications, 2017

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

 

 

Royal Dutch Shell ties executive pay to carbon reduction

December 3, 2018

BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46424830

 

Strategic CSR - Refillables

The articles in the two urls below (which appeared together on the same page of The Wall Street Journal) offer competing versions of our attempts to minimize the role of plastic in our lives. The first article reports that companies such as Unilever and P&G have announced they will trial refillable containers. The goal, as expressed by Unilever's new CEO, Alan Jope, is to combat the "accusation that we're in the branded litter business:"

 

"Procter & Gamble Co., Nestlé SA, PepsiCo Inc. and Unilever PLC are among 25 companies that, this summer, will start selling some products in glass, steel and other containers designed to be returned, cleaned and refilled."

 

The arguments against this working are, in essence, human nature:

 

"Critics question whether the project will achieve scale in the face of high costs and entrenched consumer behavior. But, if successful, the companies say the efforts will reduce waste from single-use packaging. It could also woo eco-conscious consumers, glean data and foster brand loyalty."

 

Interestingly, the program at Unilever is being run by TerraCycle (see Strategic CSR – TerraCycle):

 

"Unilever will sell nine brands in refillable containers … and stat with 5,000 shoppers in New York and Paris in May. The pilot will extend to London later this year and cities including Toronto and Tokyo next year."

 

If successful, the plan will result in a significant reduction in the amount of plastic packaging being used:

 

"Unilever estimates a refillable steel container for its Axe and Dove stick deodorants will last eight years—long enough to prevent the disposal of as many as 100 traditional deodorant packages."

 

In many ways, however, this is not so much a new initiative as the revival of an old practice:

 

"In 1947, refillables made up 100% of the soft-drink containers by volume and 86% of beer containers, according to the Container Recycling Institute. … By 1998 those figures had dropped to 0.4% and 3.3% respectively."

 

It will only work, however, if people are willing to pay the upfront costs:

 

"The products will cost roughly the same as the versions in single-use containers, but users will also have to pay a deposit of $1-$10 per container. Shipping charges start at roughly $20, decreasing with every item added."

 

In contrast, the second article reports on the growing role of compostable materials as an alternative to plastic packaging:

 

"Compostable bags, cups and cutlery are becoming more popular amid the mounting backlash against plastic waste, but many aren't making it to the compost heap."

 

While this may seem to be a positive, due to a lack of awareness and a lack of infrastructure (particularly in cities, where opportunities to compost are rare), companies are marketing this packaging as 'green,' but the effect of this packaging is worse than plastic (at least some of which gets recycled):

 

"The problem is most compostable products don't break down on their own. They need high heat and moisture, conditions found in special industrial facilities."

 

In other words, this packaging cannot decompose unless it has the right conditions, which do not occur when it is thrown in the trash:

 

"Compostable products are then burned or sent to landfills, where—deprived of oxygen and microorganisms—they don't degrade."

 

And, because of the general lack of awareness about the packaging, it seems that recycling facilities struggle if people place it in recycle bins ("Through the washing process, compostables can degrade, contaminating the plastic"), while composting facilities "struggle with the same problem in reverse" as they have to process recyclable materials that they cannot compost. The problem is exacerbated because not all composting facilities will accept the new packaging:

 

"A 2018 study by BioCycle … found that just 50 of 103 U.S. food-waste composting facilities said they accept compostable plastics."

 

Yet, because they are perceived to be 'green' initiatives, companies are jumping on the bandwagon to adopt this technology without waiting to see if their 'solution' is, in fact, creating more problems than it is solving:

 

"The number of certified compostable products in the U.S. has risen 80% over the past 3½ years to 9,000, according to the Biodegradable Products Institute, a certification body."

 

As always, it is easier to pretend to effect change than actually taking the time to do something meaningful.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (4e)

© Sage Publications, 2017

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Marketers Hope You Want to Refill

By Saabira Chaudhuri

January 25, 2019

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

B1

https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-brands-to-test-refillable-containers-11548316801

Items Meant to Cut Down on Plastic are Going to Waste

By Saabira Chaudhuri

January 25, 2019

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

B5

https://www.wsj.com/articles/compostables-meant-to-cut-plastic-waste-are-struggling-11548172800

 

Strategic CSR - Olympics

The article in the url below announces what seems to be a worthwhile use for e-waste:

 

"All medals at next summer's Olympics and Paralympics in Tokyo will be made from recycled electronic waste, including discarded smartphones, digital cameras and other handheld games and laptops, organizers revealed on Friday."

 

The organizing committee have already collected most of the metal they will need:

 

"… municipal authorities had already collected 47,488 tons of junked devices by November, roughly 19 months after the project was launched with targets of 30.3kg of gold, 4,100kg of silver and 2,700kg of bronze. The goal for bronze was reached in June, while more than 90% of the gold and 85% of the silver has been collected, officials said."

 

This seems to be a policy that is not new, but has been extended in scope for Tokyo:

 

"The concept has been implemented in previous Olympics, most recently at Rio 2016, where an estimated 30% of the silver and bronze medals were wrought from recycled materials. … the current project will mark the first time citizens have been proactively involved with the donation of consumer electronics."

 

The key with such proposals, however, is whether they are substantive or symbolic. Sure, they help raise awareness of a difficult issue, briefly, but presenting it in a way that is all warm and fuzzy saves us from feeling uncomfortable about what is an extremely serious problem. Moreover, by not asking us to alter our behavior (or make any kind of sacrifice), the feeling is that someone else must be taking care of this – a reaction that ensures the issue will move back into our distant subconscious as quickly as it was brought forward with this announcement. The result is that the organizers get to greenwash the Olympics and nothing of any substance changes.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (4e)

© Sage Publications, 2017

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Tokyo 2020 medals to be made from discarded smartphones and laptops

February 8, 2019

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/feb/08/olympics-medals-recycled-gadgets-electronic-waste

 

Strategic CSR - The human-centric environment

The current debate around the environment is completely human centric. This is not surprising given our overwhelming confidence in our collective self-importance, but it does color the debate in ways that simultaneously distort it. It is fine to do this as long as we are aware that we are doing it. If we are doing it ignorantly, however, it diminishes our ability to understand what is really happening. In Strategic CSR, most of this plays out in the discussion around whether the natural environment is a stakeholder of the firm (Chapter 4). My argument is that it is not, simply because the natural environment does not have agency. If there are no interests that can be directly articulated to the manager, then the manager should instead focus on the self-appointed representatives of the environment (Greenpeace, the government, etc.) who definitely do have agency and are willing to act. Whether those actors 'know' the interests of the environment is another thing altogether – the key point is that they have interests and are able to pursue them in ways that directly affect the firm.

 

But, I digress. Back to the distortions around discussions about the environment. It is very common for us to say, for example, that pollution makes the environment worse. Of course, it does no such thing. It may make it less amenable to human life, which we may not like (although that is an empirical question that humanity is still working on), but it does not make it worse, per se. Mars has an environment, just like the Earth has an environment. Both of them are perfectly good environments; it is just that only one can sustain human life. That is not a rhetorical nuance, it is essential to understanding our place on this planet and beginning the process of deciding whether we want to keep living on it. The article in the url below sums up why this distinction is important:

 

"We speak of 'saving' the Earth as if it were a little bunny in need of help. We show images of gaunt polar bears on melting ice floes to elicit guilt and environmental action. But those images and stories blind us to the reality of this remarkable moment in Earth's history. Our planet does not need our saving. The biosphere has endured cataclysms far worse than us — and after millions of years thrived again. Even the Earth's five fearsome mass extinctions became opportunities for the biosphere's creativity, driving new rounds of evolutionary experiments. … In the long term, the biosphere will handle pretty much anything we throw at it, including climate change."

 

In reality, we need the 'environment' much more than it needs us:

 

"What Earth's history does make clear, however, is that if we don't take the right kind of action soon the biosphere will simply move on without us, creating new versions of itself in the changing climate we're generating now. So we must be honest. The problem is not saving the Earth or life writ large, but saving our cherished civilization. From that perspective the nature of our choices changes significantly."

 

We are subservient to the greater environment, but the environment doesn't 'care' whether we are here or not. In other words, there is no pre-determined outcome to this story where we inevitably survive:

 

"From the biosphere's perspective, a city is fundamentally no different from a forest. Both are the result of life's endless evolutionary experiments. And forests, like grasslands, insects and oxygen-producing microbes, were once an evolutionary innovation. In that sense we, and our project of civilization, are not a plague on the planet. We are just what the biosphere is doing now. The question then becomes what changes must we make to still be 'what it's doing' many millenniums from now?"

 

The Earth is part of a much bigger story and we, at best, play a bit role. We are expendable, from the planet's perspective. The quicker we realize this, the greater the likelihood that we will take meaningful action, rather than waiting for someone/something else to do it for us.

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (4e)

© Sage Publications, 2017

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Earth Will Survive. We May Not.

By Adam Frank

June 13, 2018

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

A25

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/opinion/earth-will-survive-we-may-not.html

 

Strategic CSR - Freedom

The article in the url below is a critical review of a new book (titled On Freedom) by Cass Sunstein, most famously of the "nudge" phenomenon. The author of the review begins with an overview of "what is means for people to be free." Presenting a balance between the liberty we require to pursue our self-interest (however we define that), with the (most obviously legal) constraints necessary to ensure one person's pursuit of their self-interest does not unnecessarily harm or limit anyone else's pursuit of their self-interest:

 

"No one thinks that any coherent notion of liberty lets everyone do just what they want, the rest of the world be damned. …. Even in a free society, [the] basic rules of the game have to be defined and imposed collectively. But there are limits. To echo the famous words of John Stuart Mill in 'On Liberty,' it won't do to say baldly that no individual is allowed to do any act that harms another. By that measure, market competition would need to end, because it harms losing competitors."

 

OK, so far so good. The author (of the review) then goes on to critique Sunstein for, first, not covering this basic overview, but also for the content he does focus on. In essence, Sunstein suggests that, if 'freedom' requires free choice, then what happens if there is too much choice? The answer, he argues, is that many "individuals lose their way," which, ultimately, means they are less free. In short, too much freedom leads to too much choice, which leads to decision-making paralysis (i.e., reduced freedom). In response, he offers his framework of "navigability," which relies on "nudges" and "choice architecture" to find their way out of this circular trap of the modern world:

 

"By nudges, Mr. Sunstein means interventions that supposedly leave individuals freedom of choice but subtly steer them in certain desirable directions. … Mr. Sunstein's notion of 'choice architecture' [is defined] loosely as 'the environment in which choices are made.'"

 

This brings us to the reviewer's central criticism – that it is all well and good saying that people can be lightly coerced into making the 'correct' choices, but who is to say what is correct? And, perhaps more importantly from the reviewer's perspective, how can we stop someone using such influence over others for Machiavellian ends?

 

"But which social planners should be allowed to play the role of shaping that environment and how long can they keep that role? What institutional norms and safeguards will protect everyone else against these overseers' own cognitive impairments, ideological blind spots or corrupt motivations? Mr. Sunstein never tells us who is fit to correct the mistakes of others."

 

Ignoring the obvious point that politicians get elected to make such political/social/ethical choices for us all the time, I think this point is important because it applies to much of what I see as wrong with the mainstream CSR debate. Much of that debate is conducted in absolute terms – i.e., firms must pay their employees $15 an hour, or they must stop using sweatshop labor, or they must not pollute, etc. Such absolute statements ignore the fact that many parts of society (if not the majority) like cheap hamburgers, love to shop for $5 t-shirts, and don't mind pollution (as long as it is not in their backyard or they can't see it). We cannot ignore basic economic theory or human psychology in analyzing the problem and before we start suggesting solutions. To do so is to waste everyone's time. In critiquing Sunstein, therefore, the reviewer is also critiquing much of what passes for debate in the CSR world. More importantly, however, he is missing the obvious answer – that we all have individual values and agendas and are pursuing them in a vast marketplace of ideas. The 'winners' of those debates (whether politicians or academics writing textbooks) are exactly the people who get to define the 'solutions' that society attempts to implement. And, as with many aspects of life, the competition is not meritocratic. In other words, the 'best' idea is defined by the person who is the most persuasive, or best connected, or simply the luckiest in terms of timing – not necessarily the one that would benefit the most people or lead to the 'best' society (whatever that means).

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (4e)

© Sage Publications, 2017

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

 

 

Nudged to be free

By Richard A. Epstein

February 28, 2019

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

A15

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-freedom-review-nudged-to-be-free-11551312324

 

Strategic CSR - Basic Income

There has been lots of discussion recently about the idea of a basic income for all citizens. Largely, this discussion has been in response to alarmist headlines due to the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning, and projections about the impact these new technologies will have on employment. Putting aside those projections, which I have commented on previously (most recently, Strategic CSR – Jobs and Strategic CSR – Robots), there remains the issue of whether a basic income is worth exploring as effective public policy, especially given the potential cost. All the evidence I have seen suggests we could not afford to do it in a way that achieves the social welfare benefits that this policy is intended to deliver. The article in the url below adds some solid empirics to that debate by describing the results of a two-year study in Finland. As might be expected with such a complex policy idea, the results are mixed:

 

"Finland — the world's happiest country last year, according to the United Nations — is exploring alternatives to its social security model. About 2,000 Finns, chosen randomly from among the unemployed, became the first Europeans to be paid a regular monthly income by the state that was not reduced if they found work."

 

And the results are now in:

 

"Finland's minister of health and social affairs … said the impact on employment of the monthly pay check of 560 euros ($635) 'seems to have been minor on the grounds of the first trial year.' But participants in the trial were happier and healthier than the control group."

 

And, in this context, "happier" means across-the-board in a much better place:

 

"The chief researcher … said that compared with the control group, 'The basic income recipients of the test group reported better well-being in every way.'"

 

It seems that the main benefit, according to participants reported in the article, is the security that the commitment of the basic income provided. Although the total amounts of money they received were not very much higher than they were otherwise getting under Finland's generous welfare payments, not having to deal with the government bureaucracy and knowing the money was committed for two years, helped in many ways:

 

"Sini Marttinen, 36, a former I.T. consultant, had been unemployed for nearly a year before 'winning the lottery,' as she described the trial. Her basic income gave her enough confidence to open a restaurant with two friends. 'I think the effect was a lot psychological," she said. 'You kind of got this idea you have two years, you have the security of €560 per month,' she said, adding: 'It gave me the security to start my own business.' Her income rose by only €50 a month compared with the jobless benefit she had been receiving, 'but in an instant you lose the bureaucracy, the reporting,' Ms. Marttinen said."

 

Other participants reported being given the freedom to be more creative in their day-to-day lives (e.g., via hobbies). Unfortunately, the main purpose of the policy was to combat unemployment, and a basic income is a very expensive (and not particularly effective) way of achieving that:

 

"The higher taxes that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development says would be needed to pay for basic income schemes might also be off-putting for voters. In a review of the Finnish scheme last year, the organization warned that implementing it nationally and cost-neutrally for the state would imply significant income redistribution, especially toward couples from single people, and increase poverty."

 

The key, of course, is what is the correlation between the more abstract relationship between happiness and social welfare, versus the more concrete relationship between employment and social welfare. In other words, if someone is happy but unemployed, are they a more 'productive' member of society than someone who is employed (even if they are less happy as a result)? This discussion is particularly appropriate in a U.S. context, where the constitution guarantees a right to the pursuit of happiness. But, is happiness all it is cracked up to be, especially if it is reduced to an individual pursuit that comes at the cost of social cohesion?

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (4e)

© Sage Publications, 2017

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Finland's Basic Income Trial Boosts Happiness, but Not Employment

By Saabira Chaudhuri

January 25, 2019

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

B1

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/world/europe/finland-basic-income.html