Search

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

"'Environmental Justice and Cumulative Impacts' is intended to create stronger environmental and land use policy tools at the local level to prevent and mitigate additional pollution associated with a variety of development and redevelopment projects. It also addresses environmental justice by helping to prevent Newark, which has a disproportionate number of low-income and residents of color, from having a disproportionate number of polluting projects placed within its borders" (Hislip par. 1).

"showed a graph developed by environmental justice community organizers, which detailed the differences between communities that experience pollution versus the predominant race of those communities, which showed that as the number of people of color or the level of poverty in a neighborhood increased, so too did the cumulative impacts. In New Jersey, the amount of pollution you experience is directly correlated to your income and skin color" (Hislip par. 5).

"She explained that zoning laws in Newark are slowly changing, including rezoning and getting rid of outdated rules that were grandfathered in. But the impacts from the pollutants that were allowed to run rampant are very evident. Before Newark’s zoning laws were updated in 2012, the last time they had been updated was in 1954 and therefore had little regard for quality-of-life issues. The Ironbound district later became a hotbed for environmental justice movements due to its adjacency to industrial areas. Many heavy pollutants that were planned for this area saw heavy protest from EJ activists, like automobile shredding plants and chicken crematoriums" (Hislip par.8).

"The ordinance itself requires individuals applying for commercial or industrial developments within Newark to take the following steps:

1. Reference the city’s ERI and prepare a checklist of pollutants
2. Submit checklist and development application to the city
3. Checklist goes to the Environmental Commission
4. Checklist goes to the Planning or Zoning Board (where appropriate)" (Hislip par. 9)

The main sources of resilience are: discussing the list of pollutants that are spread across through a demographic structure, how pollutants affect and become more apparent to different race and economic levels; the information about possible new pollutants that could appear due to the addition of new companies; and the reconstruction on the zoning laws in Newark. Additionally, there are numerous environmentalists of all types behind this new addition to the zoning and land use regulations. 

The first point that peaked my interest is when Dr. Nicky Sheats brought up the real world example of a powerplant that was placed in the Ironbound District. It's an example of how government standards don't reflect or align with individual standards. I thought this was interesting to see how the people didn't have their due justice in deciding to have a polluting plant in their neighborhood. The other fact that caught my eye is that Newark zoning laws, previous to being updated in 2012, had been grandfathered in since 1954. This goes to show the complete lack of awareness for public health that has resided in New Jersey's History. The last point that truly shaped this article is how steps were being taken to prevent environmental justice issues. Commercial and Industrial developers have to go through the following process when proposing for a building: "

1. Reference the city’s ERI and prepare a checklist of pollutants
2. Submit checklist and development application to the city
3. Checklist goes to the Environmental Commission
4. Checklist goes to the Planning or Zoning Board (where appropriate)

The public has full access to this checklist to weigh in on it and make their voices heard." 

The policy is to have stronger land use and environmental rules on a local level. It aims to mitigate use of pollutants, and give careful attention to low-income, minority citizens as to not pollute their communities.