Search

The “free press” generated by social media sharing of the gamified achievements of the app users, which were branded with Telefonica

The publicity video for downloading the app was also shared on social media and was posted to the author’s facebook by her presumably nonacademic friend; the video is also on Telefonica’s YouTube channel, perhaps it was an ad on TV or internet as well? The project was also described on the company’s website, although I think that is no longer available.

All users of their prepaid phones being invited to “symbolically vote” against child labor when refilling, by sending a text - 1 million votes was to trigger the “campus party” (hackathon), which then brought together people who came up with the surveillance app

Denuncia-thon which enforced offline connections of the ‘digital activists’ - euphoric

Statements to the academics about moving beyond philanthropy, and about sustainability and leadership, naturalizing their goodness, in contrast to mining companies

Life-changing, according to the tech contractor: "able to make his work count toward a 'social good'" 674 - euphoria described by the otherwise formal corporate overseer of the project, cyber-optimism described by the tech worker - but the beneficiary is abstract to the point of the “activists” not having any idea how the app impacts them (which it doesn't); the distance is emphasized by the author, you see the child worker on the street but you don’t interact with them. The closeness of the online/offline relationship among “geeks with a heart” intensifies the Othering and abstracting of the beneficiary. 

Continuing the development orthodoxy - the ethical is defined in terms of universalized values like “children’s rights” without any deeper understanding of local context than that child street vendors exist. 

Responsibility is twisted around to work with the exit narratives - failed or quickly terminated programs are ok because they are responsible for enabling other actors who are really responsible for the outcomes. They enact the ethical and responsibility by platforming it for others to participate in and carry out - through the interactive apps, the hackathons, and the immediate handoff of all collected data to an overworked government agency

They also redefine the ethical and responsibility to line up with their corporate plans anyway - market expansion becomes the right thing to do because they bring digital access to information

Rather than trying to replace the government, they keep the responsibility with the government, but say they are partnering and enabling/enhancing what the government is doing. 

They are shaping conditions for what counts as democratic order, etc. with their creation of shallow and ineffective “activists” doing a corporate-defined action for a corporate-defined cause

Becoming development orthodoxy at the UN Global Compact, see above - Citing Rajak 2016

Distancing from philanthropy

Distancing from mining industry’s CSR, even the term CSR itself, and distancing from harm mitigation

Naturalizing the “goodness” of their regular product/ market expansion mission

Thematically tying CSR initiatives to their product (digital ed)

Creating the consumer-citizen-activist as an activist in a narrow and shallow sense

Positioning self as enabler, not taking responsibility, not replacing state

Truly bringing different “stakeholders” to the table - because the Rio event was very much taken over by the corporate green consultants

It seemed to be all about communications strategies - not necessarily ads but knowing how to handle media when something happens, oh and having those meetings where they set all the ground rules - so they agree to meet with activists but only on the corporation’s terms. Leveraging the UN stage - so signing charters and prominently displaying their messaging at the stage of a conference.

t seems like the consultants truly see the corporations as the victims here - the CEOs or the people in the companies who can get jail time for not putting appropriate audit systems in place or get trapped in complex legal monitoring requirements - they don’t seem to have a bit of sympathy for the victims or for the activists, who they see as “attacking” them.

There’s a little bit where the CEO of Union Carbide claims to be doing the “moral” not just strictly legal amount of help in the aftermath of Bhopal, given the Indian government’s ownership stake in the plant. 

Mostly responsibility is seen as a performance by the Green Consultants - because no matter how “good” you are you still get attacked by activists and the laws are too hard to follow and are designed to trip you up. So responsibility also becomes a pre-emptive offensive strategy - And Green Consultants try to get people within the corporation to see the political, financial investment, PR, etc. benefits that come with this performance of green. It’s necessary to perform “Transparency” [though it wasn’t called that yet, perhaps]- the house analogy. Like the case of ARCO - the somewhat green-er gas is celebrated and rakes in profits and maintains a car-based status-quo; and the explosions are not mentioned.

Taking over the definition of “sustainable development” and making this concept rational, ensuring that economic growth is no longer in opposition to environmental protection - “leading” by being a driver at a UN conference - work done by the “beyond blame” rhetorical trick of [weaponizing inclusion] - self-imposed audits, monitoring, and management tools which are then loudly communicated about, in addition to the participation in institutions that give outside credibility