This text is part of the special Corporate Social Responsibility section
The codes of conduct and other certifications imposed by large companies in the North on their suppliers in the South, which aim to reassure consumers who are often concerned about the social impact or the ecological footprint of the products they buy, are generally made to the detriment of the latter. Far from solving the structural problems with which they are grappling, these ways of doing corporate social responsibility (CSR) would rather reveal the persistence of neocolonialist dynamics. This is indicated by the preliminary results of a study conducted by Lovasoa Ramboarisata, professor in the Department of Strategy, Social and Environmental Responsibility at UQAM.
“The speech is still very paternalistic. The colonial relationship with the South seems to remain. We want them to bring us quality products, raw materials and products made according to an ethical charter, but at the same time, we do not support them properly. There are issues that interest them, but we are not asking them to include them in the certification criteria. These criteria are of interest to contractors from the North, but do not necessarily correspond to the issues affecting countries in the South ”, notes Mme Ramboarisata as part of this study conducted jointly with Elisabeth Lord, one of his master’s students.
Overall, the two researchers realized that the CSR practiced by large companies in northern countries is not based on a dialogue between the parties and is more of a balance of power unfavorable to partners in the South, who do not really have voice in the chapter.
“For example, we see it in the textile sector. Suppliers in Bangladesh or India just accept what the Gap, Zara and other H&M impose on them as codes of conduct. They just receive the order and go there [plier]. They have never been involved in defining what to comply with. They are told: if you want me to give you contracts, you have to get certified, that you fight against corruption, against the problems of accidents at work, etc. It becomes a barrier to entry. It is this kind of injustice that happens under the pretext of CSR that interests me, ”explains Lovasoa Ramboarisata, who deplores the fact that, in this context, these codes and certifications are more akin to“ tools of discipline. “.
Perfectible tools
However, everything is not to be thrown away, far from it, in terms of codes of conduct, nuances the researcher, who recognizes that they already have the merit of existing. “The appearance of codes of conduct in the early 2000s – following the Nike scandal – changed things. Because by adopting these codes, businesses in the North are brought to accountability and to be more transparent. Especially since we are talking about large companies like Gap, L’Oréal, Nike, etc., which have the resources to do so, ”argues the researcher.
From his point of view, the problem does not lie in using them, but rather in imposing them on subcontractors in the South, without offering adequate support and without taking into account the costs they involve. “Our discourse is not to say that these tools are bad or useless, but rather that they must be improved so that, in their use, neither a relationship of infantilization nor of discipline reproduces”, estimates the specialist in corporate social responsibility.
Open up to dialogue
It is the very content of these codes and certifications that must be rethought, believes Lovasoa Ramboarisata. “When we say“ occupational health and safety ”, what are we talking about? Did we ask ourselves the question of what sometimes prevents us from having safe work sites in the countries of the South? The same goes for gender equality. For example, just asking them to have more women on supervisors is not enough. There are fundamental issues like gender-based violence, deeply structural inequities. We can’t just close our eyes, place orders, and let the little boss in the South handle this on his own. We need support and dialogue ”, pleads Mme Ramboarisata.
Another recommendation brought by this study – still in progress – is to be part of an exchange process, by highlighting the know-how of each other. “I offer co-learning support because I firmly believe that contractors also have to learn. Sometimes there are solutions to social or environmental problems that the partners in the South know better than the contractors. Often, in these countries, ancestral knowledge is much more effective than Western knowledge, in protecting biodiversity for example. But we don’t have enough dialogue with them, ”regrets Lovasoa Ramboarisata.