Post by account_disabled on Mar 8, 2024 23:58:37 GMT -5
Several news items have recently been published in the Spanish press that the Sustainable Economy Law project will allow companies to obtain “certification of socially responsible companies.” Numeral 3 of article 40 says: “Companies that meet a minimum level in the previous indicators may be accredited as socially responsible companies by the Observatory of the State Council of Corporate Social Responsibility……….” . The indicators referred to are cited in paragraphs 1 and 2, which say that "the Government will make available a set of characteristics and indicators for self-assessment...", "......transparency in management, good corporate governance, commitment to the local and the environment, respect for human rights, improvement in labor relations and effective equality between women and men…” (quotes taken from the only text available on the internet, which may not be the approved one on March 19, 2010 by the Council of Ministers of Spain to be sent to Congress). The bill also has a very comprehensive article on sustainability in public companies that commits them to responsible practices. They are very laudable efforts to promote the social responsibility of companies and they are to be appreciated. But as we mentioned in another article (Handle with Care: Corporate Responsibility Standards and Guides these good intentions can have unforeseen consequences. In the case of the law, the situation is potentially more serious since it will be a government institution (the Council was created by Royal Decree) that “accredits” companies as socially responsible, with all the “credit” that this means. Let's analyze this situation carefully. First, accreditation will be the result of a self-assessment”, that is, a questionnaire with indicators that the company itself fills out.
Second, it will be based on declared compliance Phone Number List with minimums. We assume that the company will be completely honest and tell the truth and will refer to its actual practices, not intentions, on the topics indicated. In these questionnaires, if there is equality between men and women in an office, the company will answer “yes”, we do not believe it will say “only somewhere”. If a manufacturing plant takes care not to dump toxic waste, it will say that it has environmentally responsible practices, regardless of whether it is one of the main emitters of greenhouse gases. At the outset it must be emphasized that we are not opposed to companies being recognized. But we must distinguish between partial responsibility and total responsibility. Every company has some responsible practices. Hence, a tobacco company, a liquor producer or an oil company can claim that they are responsible for something, if they are, but not for everything. They have products that have components of irresponsibility, although they are products that society demands. These companies may have partial but not total liability. Recently the pharmaceutical company ility? on our blogonship between its diabetic drug and heart attacks and that it even intimidated independent scientists." Partial liability or full liability? Unfortunately, “accreditation” by the government will be interpreted by many, and especially used by the company itself, as if it were synonymous with total responsibility.
We can already imagine what the press department will say: “Our company has been accredited by an institution of the Government of Spain as a socially responsible company.” They will not say: “based on an unaudited questionnaire that we completed ourselves.” Nor will they say: “based on minimums established by the government,” or “although we have some practices that leave much to be desired.” The promoters of the idea announce, correctly, that it will not be a certification. However, the bill talks about “accreditation” (which has the connotation of giving credit to something). While there will be no “certification,” there will be “accreditation,” which in business advertising is unfortunately the same thing. In fact, I found a dictionary that defines “accreditation” as “certification, through a document, that you have the necessary powers to perform a task.” Does this accreditation help? Isn't this an undesirable shortcut for companies to inform and civil society to disseminate and the consumer to act? When we see this accreditation, we will not have to look at anything else: “The government says so, all of this company's products have been produced responsibly.” There is nothing more to find out. What happened in the financial crisis? Has anyone looked behind the ratings? If a rating agency rated the instrument or project as AAA, I buy it. I have nothing more to find out. Furthermore, as an officer of an investment institution I am covered; my policy authorizes me to purchase investment grade papers.
Second, it will be based on declared compliance Phone Number List with minimums. We assume that the company will be completely honest and tell the truth and will refer to its actual practices, not intentions, on the topics indicated. In these questionnaires, if there is equality between men and women in an office, the company will answer “yes”, we do not believe it will say “only somewhere”. If a manufacturing plant takes care not to dump toxic waste, it will say that it has environmentally responsible practices, regardless of whether it is one of the main emitters of greenhouse gases. At the outset it must be emphasized that we are not opposed to companies being recognized. But we must distinguish between partial responsibility and total responsibility. Every company has some responsible practices. Hence, a tobacco company, a liquor producer or an oil company can claim that they are responsible for something, if they are, but not for everything. They have products that have components of irresponsibility, although they are products that society demands. These companies may have partial but not total liability. Recently the pharmaceutical company ility? on our blogonship between its diabetic drug and heart attacks and that it even intimidated independent scientists." Partial liability or full liability? Unfortunately, “accreditation” by the government will be interpreted by many, and especially used by the company itself, as if it were synonymous with total responsibility.
We can already imagine what the press department will say: “Our company has been accredited by an institution of the Government of Spain as a socially responsible company.” They will not say: “based on an unaudited questionnaire that we completed ourselves.” Nor will they say: “based on minimums established by the government,” or “although we have some practices that leave much to be desired.” The promoters of the idea announce, correctly, that it will not be a certification. However, the bill talks about “accreditation” (which has the connotation of giving credit to something). While there will be no “certification,” there will be “accreditation,” which in business advertising is unfortunately the same thing. In fact, I found a dictionary that defines “accreditation” as “certification, through a document, that you have the necessary powers to perform a task.” Does this accreditation help? Isn't this an undesirable shortcut for companies to inform and civil society to disseminate and the consumer to act? When we see this accreditation, we will not have to look at anything else: “The government says so, all of this company's products have been produced responsibly.” There is nothing more to find out. What happened in the financial crisis? Has anyone looked behind the ratings? If a rating agency rated the instrument or project as AAA, I buy it. I have nothing more to find out. Furthermore, as an officer of an investment institution I am covered; my policy authorizes me to purchase investment grade papers.