Comments on: Part I: Is Social Consciousness Optional

By: Joan

Joan — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:27:30 +0000

Is it socially responsible for a food bank, for example, to pay its employees a salary that keeps them among the working poor, who would qualify to receive food assistance? But then we must consider that that same food bank is financially strapped and if it paid its employees more, wouldn’t be able to afford its regular food distribution. So are we sacrificing our staff well-being for a greater good?

By: editor

editor — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:56:44 +0000

Laura’s response to Karen:

Karen, your point is absolutely right on: what is socially responsible in one situation or to one person is not going to be socially responsible to or in another. But this is exactly the discussion that a responsible board should be having–how does it want to define socially responsible for its organization? A lawyer colleague recently told me of getting a call from a client, an animal rescue organization, wanting to know if it would be okay to allow hunting on their property. My guess is this group didn’t have the socially responsible conversation. Whether an organization wants to be mindful or not of the sources of its money (and more), and just how far an organization wants to go is entirely up to it. Not having this conversation, though, is socially irresponsible.

By: Karen

Karen — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:22:55 +0000

I am interested in the definition of socially responsible. Seems possible one person’s socially responsible is another’s evil. Sometimes it’s obvious (I would expect a land conservation org to make sure they weren’t investing in a development company), but would they also make sure that all the foundations they receive money from don’t have development investments?

And this doesn’t even touch on the origin of a lot of the money the foundations started with! Depending on how narowly we define social responsible, we might eliminate just about every funding source.

By: Joan

Joan — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:24:58 +0000

When I worked for a domestic violence program, the staff was conflicted as to whether to accept funding from The Playboy Foundation. Was a publication that objectifies women contributing to the climate that tolerates, if not encourages, the abuse of women? Ultimately, we never applied. And ultimately, our organization ran out of funding and closed. So who was right????

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:14:27 +0000

These are some pretty heady questions. I’ve got another one for you – if massive companies like Apple use “green ingredients” to make their products “better for the environment,” are they doing it to be socially responsible, or is it all good PR in this environmentally-concerned world?

A little off topic, isn’t it? Sorry about that. Your blog just continues to make me think and wonder.