For many corporations, this is the best of times, and the worst of times.
The best, because they are able to take advantage of information technology to go global, and governments everywhere, seeking to attract investment, lay out the red carpet and offer generous incentives. The worst, because just as there seems to be no limit to their corporate ambitions, so there is also no limit to their burdens and responsibilities.
Take for example Google's recent cave-in to China. Google has agreed to screen out search requests for sensitive terms like "Tibet independence" on its simplified-character website. The resulting controversy shows that people are not willing to just look the other way and permit Google to think of nothing but the bottom line, but rather want the company to use its power for good to defend freedom of information--especially seeing that "the free flow of information" is virtually Google's raison d'etre and core value.
Last year a filmmaker in the US made a documentary of how he wrecked his health by stuffing himself with McFood for 30 days, making McDonald's the focus of public criticism. By the same logic that people whose diseases are related to smoking can seek compensation from tobacco companies, consumption of high-cholesterol junk food can also be seen as the fault of the seller.
This month's cover story is about "corporate social responsibility" (CSR), in which globalized corporate winners not only take all, but give back, too. It used to be that few firms worried much about anything not related to profit. Now it is possible for issues of legal liability or corporate image to sink a company.
Moreover, whereas in the past philanthropy was little more than window dressing, today it is an integral corporate function. As Noreena Hertz writes in her book The Silent Takeover, in many places where poverty is rampant, it is governments that act more like rapacious companies and companies that act more like governments--businesses take the initiative to teach children to read and write, dispense basic hygiene knowledge, provide clean water, and even help local AIDS victims.
Taking this month's cover story in combination with the one we did last year on profit-minded NGOs, it is clear that the lines between "profit" and "non-profit" activities are being blurred. Bill Gates, who in a single bound went from being the world's richest man to being the world's greatest philanthropist by setting up a charitable foundation with a US$29 billion endowment, is only the most prominent example.
On the other hand, if companies use underhand methods to make money, even if they have given money to charity, they will be roundly attacked if their hypocrisy comes to light. The public will have to keep a magnifying glass handy to monitor corporate activities, to make sure they stay within the rules of CSR.
Somewhat regrettably, while deputy editor Coral Lee was writing up this topic, she found that there are not very many companies in Taiwan that fully understand the issue of CSR, or pay it close attention. Yet many firms in fact do quite a lot of good, without trying to score public relations points off their deeds. Perhaps this attitude conforms to Eastern philosophy, but it does not fit very well with the modern habit of corporations to keep hammering their names into the public consciousness, using "charity" to pursue profit.
Though corporate and NGO philanthropy can certainly help to reduce suffering in society, the only way to solve the problems at the root is by inspiring individuals to mobilize themselves. This month we devote a lot of space to a special feature on business renewal, including efforts by the Good Neighbor Foundation to reinvigorate old shops, and the wave of "tribal village revival" among indigenous peoples.
Let's not underestimate these local microenterprises! They have the potential to make the transition to "aesthetic industries" with links to culture, ecology, and life. Whatever their nature--cuisine, handicrafts, pop culture, or homestays--small businesses are making themselves over to make their products or services slicker, richer in content, and more knowledge-based. Businesses like these, which cannot migrate elsewhere, which have no need to engage in suicidal price wars, and which cannot be easily copied by outsiders, are Taiwan's real lifeline for the future.
