“Corporate Citizenship” Is Not the Answer

Many companies are painfully aware of imbalances and want to either offset them or at least communicate to the world at large that they are aware and engaged in such issues. Therefore, these companies undertake various well-meaning corporate citizenship schemes. It cannot escape notice, for example, that major tobacco companies are also major sponsors of cultural and sports events. Many make large charitable contributions or engage with relatively low actual involvement in “good causes.” This type of corporate citizenship is particularly prevalent in businesses with low nobility but high profitability. It is almost always done alongside the main business activity rather than inside the business itself. While it is an offset, or at least perceived as such, it falls far short of correcting the imbalances themselves. When 5,000 people showed up for a blues concert by B. B. King and Ray Charles sponsored by Philip Morris, it certainly did little to resolve the healthcare concerns or claims of smokers!

Also under the heading of corporate citizenship, management may claim to be dealing with imbalances from inside, when essentially what is happening is no more than legal compliance or grudging reactions to others' initiatives. While this is certainly more constructive than the window-dressing described earlier, it falls far short of what really needs to be done. Its reactive rather than proactive character is also its main shortcoming.

Figure 9-8 presents the story of “corporate citizenship” as it is often practiced today, in schematic form; it points to those real possibilities for proactive change that only statesmanlike leadership can produce. It is to this story that we now turn.