Responsible

This is one of the few blogs written quite some time before its actually posted. In fact, I wrote this on my break at uni a while ago, after a waste of time lecture, but I'll get back to that.

This morning I had an oral presentation, requiring me to wear a suit. Which is actually somewhat annoying, I've had plenty of stares - and still getting some as I sit here outside Cafe Ava writing in my fancy blue, grossly underused, lecture pad.

So I'm using this blog to bitch, whine, moan and complain - which is an area I'm most accomplished in, and as a gentle reminder to myseld. Which will become bleedingly obvious momentarily. Firstly, Luke! Start studying for exams! You have roughly 3 weeks for you're first exam and given your poor lecture attendance and some poor assignments marks, and despite awesome ones, you need to move your ass and actually do some work this semester.

OK so now that I'm done scolding myself for my general laziness and lack of ethic this semester, we shal move onto more juicy areas of my blog. As I mentioned earlier, I had an oral presentation this morning, and one thing really stuck in my craw.

Social responsibility is not exclusively an environmental concept. This morning I listened to four speeches about Social Responsibility - none of which adequately defined what it is, and all of which went off on uncharacterised tangents about environmental sustainability. This is a common misconception of corporate social responsility. It does include the evironment, but it is not equal to environmental sustainability - they are two distinctly different concepts.

Social responsibility refers to an organisations concern to the TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE. THat is profit, social impact and environmental impact. An organisation can be deemed socially responsible if they are achieving sustainable profit margings, whilst being at least reactive to its negative impacts on society and the environment, and goes further than mere legislative compliance in doing so.

Just because organisations may do something right by the environment, it does not make them socially responsible. The Body Shop is often used as an example of social responsibility. And undoubtedly, some of the work they do for society and the environment is fantastic, particularly for the Australian Indigenous communities.

However, I'd be one of the few people to argue it is not socially responsible. Primarily because of ownership. The Body Shop, more recently, became a subsidiary of L'Oreal, which is partly owned by Nestle - two of the most socially irresponsible organisations in our time. L'Oreal are doing no favours to wildlife, and Nestle are doing no favours to infants in Africa.

What I really want, is people to not look at organisations doing the right thing, but actually look at why. In my opinion, the why factor is what honestly determines social responsibility. The Body Shop's work with the Indigenous communities of Australia is more than admirable - but what impact were they having on the community to warrant the reaction? My research suggests nothing. Then you could easily argue that the Body Shop are being proactive. So, what future impact did the Body Shop expect to have on the indigenous? Again, research has yielded me nothing. So why then, are they doing it? It could be legitimate concern or a marketing strategy, either way it doesn't fall in the reals of social responsibility. This is what most people misunderstand about social responsibility. It has to be relevant to the business - not just a nice act.

Westpac is socially responsible in that they sacrificed profit, by signing an international agreement with other banks in the world, to not fund socially or environmentally questionnable ventures. This is because its one of the few banks that realise their funds are directly assisting negative environmental and social endeavours by organisations. It was reactive, not proactive as management theory encourages, but nonetheless it is an act by Westpac, that is socially responsible because the policy has actual relevance to the businesses environmental or social impact.

So I begin again, a few days later - and my position hasn't changed. People need to realise that for as long as the triple bottom line approach is the accepted defining factor behind social responsbility, the answer lies in the organisations actual impact or perceived impact. Terming an organisation socially responsible is inherently more difficult than simply analysing those nice things in which they commit themselves to.

So now we're doing back to the world of Luke. Currently my arm is sore from playing Wii tennis on Saturday night at Cazi's. The pain was only exacerbated by my exam paced handwriting when I wrote this blog.

Canada is not far away, and my questionnable account balance and general feeling of unpreparedness has me feeling a little scared. But I'm also extremely excited. For the update - my current plans of travel so far are;
Depart Melbourne - Arrive Vancouver, BC - staying in Vancouver for a few days before travelling on down...
Depart Vancouver - Arrive Toronto, ON - staying in the city for a few days as well before heading down to Windsor to begin my Semester abroad.
Once I'm in Windsor I'll probaby do some travel from there, but that's sketchy at this point - all I know is, I want to go to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, and I'm spending New Years in New York. And despite the legal drinking age, I intend on having the best New Years experience ever.

It's my 20th birthday on Wednesday. It's actually depressing. Given its proximity to exams, my options for celebrating are somewhat limited...However... I've never been one to study too far away from exams, I'm definitely pro-cramming.

This is sufficiently long enough an update, that is all.