Analyze

When Aotearoa was colonised, settler colonisers brought with them myriad species (rats, mustelids, cats, rabbits, possums) that have predated upon or outcompeted native birds. With habitat clearance for agriculture and residential development, this produced a contemporary in which over 51 native bird species are extinct, and over 75% of all remaining species are at risk of extinction. Many of these species are taonga (treasures) to Māori. Conservation efforts seek to protect those that are left, but certain methods are controversial, due in part to different understandings of the problem. Some see possums as a threat (to forest health, and, as vectors of bovine TB, to the agricultural sector) that should be removed by any means necessary; others, as a resource whose killing should be undertaken by trappers who can collect and sell their furs and gain honest work in doing so. Some believe conservation is a public good to be achieved using public money; others see it as a site for innovation, warranting private and philanthropic investment in biodiverse futures, perhaps even at the expense of nearer-term outcomes. 'Environmental governance' is now a patchwork enterprise shared between the state, state-owned enterprises, hundreds of volunteer groups, and private innovators and operators. 

Image credit: Steve Shattuck

Addison, Courtney. 2023. "Conservation controversies in Aotearoa." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

Narrowed critique just to be of sincerity of CSR claims, not ideology of CSR. Consensus enforcing (above) silences any kind of dissent.

Enforcing consensus: Credibility and viability to compete for funding of your NGO is gone if you protest or dissent → performed consensus by silencing “stone throwing” NGOs or irrational opposition because you’re “actually trying to do something”, so the new unethical is the NGO who is just being stubborn or petty; 

Creating ads to educate consumers or communities on how to live responsibly [responsibilization]: flow of ethical expertise, from business/govt thru media to community/consumer 

Awards for CSR accomplishment is like moral capital; it also is ritualized like gift giving, reciprocal gratitude; circuit of exclusive events generates and legitimates this discourse, celebrity speakers, positive vibes

Confession of past sins plus highly visible partnerships with well-known NGOs, a very branded activity

To the extent that corporations genuinely believe that market access is going to end poverty... They seem to genuinely believe that the “third world” governments are corrupt and incompetent, in the way like in Orientalism colonialists seemed to genuinely believe that they were saving the nonwhite people from themselves. And they genuinely believe their resources are better and greater and their distribution networks etc. are better. 

NGOs have their back against the wall - they have to silently accept the language of the corporations and do it their way because they depend on the corporations for funding. So they may not see it as helpful but have to participate anyway

Redefined: New unethical is the NGO who doesn’t support CSR - they are bitter, unprogressive. Legitimate action - ethical - “partnership with business for the common cause”; Illegitimate action - unethical - “misguided, anti corporate campaigning” p17

Proof of the ethical is in rigorously calculated indices of corporate responsibility and awards presented by orgs that supposedly represent civil society

Money funneled thru well-known NGOs who have to do what they say

blame/displacement of scrutiny onto “Southern” i.e. previously colonized governments; pretty blatant language of colonialism (needing to save people from their own corrupt and incompetent governments) cast as “good governance” that corporations can do to lift people out of poverty with market access/inclusion

“Market comes to stand for social system as a whole” -p12

Business-led development becomes development orthodoxy

Reconfigured to appear as a double market competition - corporations competing for awards/ moral capital with their CSR actions, and NGOs as enterprises competing for corporate money to execute social good programs (but of course here the power is with corps to drive what is a social good program)

Public-private partnerships, defining development as market access, making it about scrutiny of “3rd world” government incompetence instead of corporate irresponsibility