The Just label, corporate social responsibility, and transparency
An article in Fast Company entitled “A new label lets you know much social justice is in your shopping” alerted me to a subject I knew nothing about: the Just label, which allows companies to inform their customers about their business practices in relation to what has become known as social justice, and which Just categorizes via 22 indicators divided into six categories: diversity; equality; security; workers’ benefits; local benefits; and responsible management of resources.
The idea reminds me of a similar initiative in Spain set up by my friend Miguel Conde, which he outlined in an infographic essay called “Knowcosters: when low cost is evil”, in which he proposes that while being free to buy what we want, we should not do so solely on the basis of price, but also taking into account factors such as the cost to the welfare state or the planet itself. His three-label system is notably simpler and better developed, and follows the same principle: give companies the means to communicate along with their range of products, and their position regarding social corporate responsibility.
Corporate social responsibility is shifting from being a quasi-aesthetical consideration to be remembered when drawing up the annual report to being something that is increasingly required of companies, and that is gradually permeating responsible consumption, at the same time as it is becoming easier to monitor companies’ practices. This has been largely facilitated by the popularization of social networks, which provides a voice to those in a position to provide testimony as to whether companies meet their social responsibilities, while at the same offering a forum for discussion to verify complaints, based on the principle that malicious accusations would soon be uncovered.
Unlike during the unidirectional communication era, it is now very hard for companies to maintain that they are socially responsible in the face of sustained accusations to the contrary. The social networks have now become the means by which, in the absence of any checks and balances, it is possible to check whether a company is doing what it says it does; this is similar in spirit to the role of whistleblowers in politics.
For the moment, these types of labeling initiatives are if nothing else, raising awareness about a debate we need to have. It will probably be some time before they gain the traction they need to be considered in any way representative and we start to see them on the goods we buy. But a trend has been started, and there is no going back.
