In an article published in the Journal of Macromarketing, professor emeritus Robert W. Nason examines the UN Global Compact to understand its impact on and its potential for addressing the dysfunctions of modern-day globalization. He seeks to address the question whether the Compact has or can provide some of the preconditions necessary in the global factor and product and service marketplace. After a description of the Compact, he presents arguments for and against the Compact, reviews evidence from three empirical studies and discusses external drivers affecting success. Mr. Nason also makes an assessment of the current state and potential of the Compact.He concludes the following:
"During the past seven years, the UN Global Compact has become the largest voluntary corporate-citizenship initiative attempting to elevate and to level the norms of corporate behavior in world markets. Impressive as this start is, the Global Compact has significant shortcomings that threaten its future. Its strategy of having a low bar for admission to drive numbers of participants, along with weak, vague, and toothless requirements of performance, undercut the Compact’s future potential in two ways. First, actions by current participants have not seriously addressed the issues represented by the Compact’s ten principles beyond what they would have done without it. Second, participants do not represent the commitment and actions of innovators and early adopters necessary to gain respect from the vast majority of international companies, thereby driving the global adoption of the Compact norms. Unless the quality of participants is placed above quantity, the Compact will ultimately fail to instill the norms imbedded in its ten principles in the world market in any meaningful sense."
In October 2008, Antonio Vives, consulting professor at Stanford University, also argued that the Global Compact should go for quality instead of quantity. He said: "[…] For the Global Compact to add value, it must become a more exclusive club, one that implies a 'membership fee', that is, one that demands responsible conduct from all its members. […] Perhaps there are too many members for a club like the one proposed, which admits anyone, and therefore devalues its membership."
Professor Nason’s article is available here.
© Photo by nerv.easy.
1 comments:
Prof Robert Nason's comments on the GC are very relevant and to the mark.The GC is looking for numbers not quality. This because it wants to explain its existence. The GC claims that its local networks in various countries enable it to provide the necessary guidelines for participants to become good corporate citizens. The fact of the matter is that most of these local networks are under the control of people who have the least interest in the participants of the principles. The Global Compact Society India is a cash rich organisation with over Rs 60 lakhs in the kitty collected as admission fee and (Rs 25,000 for corporates and Rs 5,000 for NGOs and others and an annual fee of the same amount. Yet it has not been able to provide its members the bare minimal assistance in their response to the GC. The result has been that several blue chip private and public sector companies have drifted away A small group of members have manipulated three elections to continue their hold on the organisation
Suresh Kr Pramar
Managing Trustee
Global Gandhian Trusteeship and Corporate Responsibility Foundation
Nw Delhi India
Post a Comment