5 ms·

Why does a company have a "social responsibility" towards a bunch of wealthy Americans, but none towards the very poor southeast Asians who were denied for deca

Why does a company have a "social responsibility" towards a bunch of wealthy Americans, but none towards the very poor southeast Asians who were denied for decades even the opportunity to apply for work at the US facility?

pluma 11y ago
I'm not talking about the US. And the social responsibility arises from shaping the local economy in such a way that a large number of people become dependent on the company. If a company becomes the main employer in a small town, it automatically takes on some responsibility. This is less true today when most people know they're not going to work for the same employer until retirement but it is still true for traditional companies with that kind of legacy. It's not about some theoretical ethical responsibility for the greater good of mankind but about taking responsibility for your actions and the effect they have on people you have built a relationship with. If Industrocorp, Inc builds a factory in Podunk and the labour demand raises the number of residents by an order of magnitude, then relocating operations and firing a large number of staff will ruin the local economy the company created. I'm not sure how that concept is difficult to understand: your actions have consequences, ergo you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. Large corporations may be amoral, but the CEO of a privately owned company deciding to offshore half the employees isn't. Especially when the company periodical repeatedly claims that the employees are valued and their families are important. This makes the CEO an asshole. Period.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The consequence of not shipping jobs to southeast Asia is that folks there will be vastly poorer than unemployed Europeans. That isn't theoretical, its simply a fact. Why does a non-contractual relationship change things? Are you applying the Copenhagen theory of ethics or something? http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi... Also, why dont the workers who became dependent on a company deserve responsibility for that action?
  - mtberatwork 11y ago
    Are you seriously implying that it is the responsibility of Western countries to provide and create jobs for southeast Asians?
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      No, but I don't claim companies owe any responsibility to people in their hometown either. Certainly if companies do owe something beyond wages for work performed, I can't see why it wouldn't be owed to the poor rather than the rich.
  - pluma 11y ago
    Every member of society[0] (including corporations) actions within the social contracts of that society. Society provides corporations certain affordances, in return corporations contribute to society (by paying taxes, reasonable wages and so on). Corporations don't have any god-given rights of their own, they merely have the privileges granted to them by society (via laws and regulations). I realise HN is a weird place to argue this, but corporations don't exist in a vacuum. They can't exist in a vacuum. Without a state guaranteeing its rights and the means to enforce those rights, a corporation is just a group of individuals. This is not only true for corporations. You don't have any rights other than those afforded to you by society (whether on a local level like the US or a global level like the UN). If there's no-one who's going to enforce your rights, they become purely philosophical (cf. Guantanomo -- unless you believe the UN is going to take on the US government and bail you out of there). The social contract is primarily between an individual and society at a local level. Thanks to globalization it now extends to other societies across the globe, but the responsibilities of a local corporation to residents of a country on the other side of the globe they don't already have any business relationships with is only secondary at best. That said, you're kidding yourself if you are trying to argue that increasing profit (or cutting costs, which boils down to the same effect) by outsourcing to cheaper markets could even remotely be considered something ethically positive. [0] I'm using the terms "society" and "state" or "government" interchangeably here based on the democratic principle that a state derives its legitimation from the people, i.e. the society it governs.
mtberatwork 11y ago
Huh? How many southeast Asians were denied for decades employment at a company in small town USA? Regarding social responsibility, this is simply my opinion, but companies that wish to employ the full legal and financial protection of the United States and operate within its infrastructure bear some social and moral responsibility to contribute back into the system. Offshoring the bulk of a company's workforce or moving profits overseas to evade taxes and other things of this nature should disqualify any company from receiving the protections and benefits provided by the US, full stop.
pascalmemories 11y ago
Hey, great point ! I wanted to buy property in Thailand but found I'm not legally allowed to because I'm not a Thai citizen. That's got me thinking, what about the social responsibility of southeast Asians towards Americans who have been denied for decades the opportunity to own property and live in southeast Asian countries? Every country has it's own laws about who can settle and work and under what conditions. America does it and so do 'Southeast Asian' countries and everywhere in-between. Thailand decides who can own property (or work) there. It's neither racist (as you seem to imply - but perhaps you mean only when it's America?) nor is it evil. Guess, I'll just need to suck it up and go without that great beach house in Thailand.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I'd certainly say that the Thai government are behaving in an bad manner towards prospective home buyers. It's not quite as bad - they aren't forcing Americans into dire poverty - but its certainly not an ethical move on their part. I don't know the Thailand govt well, but India has similar laws and is explicitly racist about them.

pluma 11y ago

I'm not talking about the US. And the social responsibility arises from shaping the local economy in such a way that a large number of people become dependent on the company. If a company becomes the main employer in a small town, it automatically takes on some responsibility. This is less true today when most people know they're not going to work for the same employer until retirement but it is still true for traditional companies with that kind of legacy. It's not about some theoretical ethical responsibility for the greater good of mankind but about taking responsibility for your actions and the effect they have on people you have built a relationship with. If Industrocorp, Inc builds a factory in Podunk and the labour demand raises the number of residents by an order of magnitude, then relocating operations and firing a large number of staff will ruin the local economy the company created. I'm not sure how that concept is difficult to understand: your actions have consequences, ergo you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. Large corporations may be amoral, but the CEO of a privately owned company deciding to offshore half the employees isn't. Especially when the company periodical repeatedly claims that the employees are valued and their families are important. This makes the CEO an asshole. Period.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
The consequence of not shipping jobs to southeast Asia is that folks there will be vastly poorer than unemployed Europeans. That isn't theoretical, its simply a fact. Why does a non-contractual relationship change things? Are you applying the Copenhagen theory of ethics or something? http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi... Also, why dont the workers who became dependent on a company deserve responsibility for that action?
- mtberatwork 11y ago
  Are you seriously implying that it is the responsibility of Western countries to provide and create jobs for southeast Asians?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    No, but I don't claim companies owe any responsibility to people in their hometown either. Certainly if companies do owe something beyond wages for work performed, I can't see why it wouldn't be owed to the poor rather than the rich.
- pluma 11y ago
  Every member of society[0] (including corporations) actions within the social contracts of that society. Society provides corporations certain affordances, in return corporations contribute to society (by paying taxes, reasonable wages and so on). Corporations don't have any god-given rights of their own, they merely have the privileges granted to them by society (via laws and regulations). I realise HN is a weird place to argue this, but corporations don't exist in a vacuum. They can't exist in a vacuum. Without a state guaranteeing its rights and the means to enforce those rights, a corporation is just a group of individuals. This is not only true for corporations. You don't have any rights other than those afforded to you by society (whether on a local level like the US or a global level like the UN). If there's no-one who's going to enforce your rights, they become purely philosophical (cf. Guantanomo -- unless you believe the UN is going to take on the US government and bail you out of there). The social contract is primarily between an individual and society at a local level. Thanks to globalization it now extends to other societies across the globe, but the responsibilities of a local corporation to residents of a country on the other side of the globe they don't already have any business relationships with is only secondary at best. That said, you're kidding yourself if you are trying to argue that increasing profit (or cutting costs, which boils down to the same effect) by outsourcing to cheaper markets could even remotely be considered something ethically positive. [0] I'm using the terms "society" and "state" or "government" interchangeably here based on the democratic principle that a state derives its legitimation from the people, i.e. the society it governs.

mtberatwork 11y ago

Huh? How many southeast Asians were denied for decades employment at a company in small town USA? Regarding social responsibility, this is simply my opinion, but companies that wish to employ the full legal and financial protection of the United States and operate within its infrastructure bear some social and moral responsibility to contribute back into the system. Offshoring the bulk of a company's workforce or moving profits overseas to evade taxes and other things of this nature should disqualify any company from receiving the protections and benefits provided by the US, full stop.

pascalmemories 11y ago

Hey, great point ! I wanted to buy property in Thailand but found I'm not legally allowed to because I'm not a Thai citizen. That's got me thinking, what about the social responsibility of southeast Asians towards Americans who have been denied for decades the opportunity to own property and live in southeast Asian countries? Every country has it's own laws about who can settle and work and under what conditions. America does it and so do 'Southeast Asian' countries and everywhere in-between. Thailand decides who can own property (or work) there. It's neither racist (as you seem to imply - but perhaps you mean only when it's America?) nor is it evil. Guess, I'll just need to suck it up and go without that great beach house in Thailand.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I'd certainly say that the Thai government are behaving in an bad manner towards prospective home buyers. It's not quite as bad - they aren't forcing Americans into dire poverty - but its certainly not an ethical move on their part. I don't know the Thailand govt well, but India has similar laws and is explicitly racist about them.