theatresofvirtue6
lucypeiNarrowed critique just to be of sincerity of CSR claims, not ideology of CSR. Consensus enforcing (above) silences any kind of dissent.
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
The report encompasses reports on the proceedings of the UN Scientific Comittee during its 60th session, May 2013. The UN report presents an unbiased plethora of data surmising Fukushima radiation exposure to both human an biological life. It primarily focuses on 2 reports detailing aspects of radiation exposure during the 2011 nuclear accident. The first report gives estimated levels of radiation experienced by individuals and non-human biota. Human individuals estimates are based on age and ongoing proximity to the accident. Evacuated adult citizens had an estimated exposure <10 mSv, while workers experienced doses >10mSv, with the highest exposure an estimated 100 mSv. It places these values within the context of lifelong anticipated exposure and international expected exposures. This first report also briefly discusses effects beyond radiation, including the adverse outcomes thousands faced by evacuating. The second report concentrates on radiation exposure of children during the accident. While it concludes longer epidemological studies are needed to accurately assess the prevailing biolgogical effects, several important facts are highlighted. At a given radiation dose, children are more at risk of tumor induction than adults. In addition to this increased radiosensitivity (partially due to physical factors such as size), children also demonstrate increased prevalence of several cancers. These include leaukemia, brain, and thyroid cancers, all of which show radiosensitivity. The report also suggests narrowing the scope of inquiry, as radiation-induced cancers can be influenced by factors such as age and gender.
"So far, however, the idea of setting up a trust fund to allow the Haitian government to eradicate cholera by providing clean water and sanitation has been a deal-killer among international donors."
"'If we do get a final order that the UN's immunity doesn't apply, we would expect the UN to put in clean water and sanitation and compensate the victims,' Concannon says [....] That's the optimistic view."
"That kind of political morass is one big reason - though by no means the only one - why the billions in relief and recovery aid haven't been enough to rescue Haiti from the disasters that fate kept flinging its way."
The report was published by United Nations Publication in 2014.
The report was written on the behalf of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation as a summary of their sixtieth session. The summary was written to be read to the United Nations General Assembly. The scientific data reported was collected by independent teams working on behalf of the Committee.