A few weeks ago I forwarded you an article in Foreign Affairs about corporate social responsibility--as it turns out, the Economist has picked up the thread, and has a 14-page spread in this week's edition. If you've only got time for one article, the lead story is here. Generally, the piece appears to be an attempt to temper optimism about the impact businesses can have, and should have, in facing down global problems. Whether the Economist, which is famed for its impartiality and level-headedness, is right to reign in expectations I'll leave to your consideration.
Admittedly, the Economist has never been one of my preferred publications. It's expensive, for one thing, and its focus on business issues takes a toll on readability. The analysis of social issues is commendably even-handed, and often quite insightful--but usually all too brief (few articles run for more than two pages). Even masterly written articles can only cover so much with such little ink.
Worse, I find myself skeptical of the magazine's readership. The content of the Economist is simply too specialized for general consumption, but its reputation as the magazine for the cosmopolitan and business-savvy make it an appealing subscription for the affectatious.
For what it's worth, I'm sure that among those who actually need it the Economist is simply indispensable.
And that's my gripe about the Economist. Let me know if you agree, and/or if the article's helpful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The only person I know who reads The Economist is crazy Dr. Gamble, my lovable pseudo/psychologist/economist doctor who lives on Gibson Island. I edited papers of his on reinforcement theory as a way to control substance abuse and an auction to create public policy.
The fact that The Economist would worry enough about CSR to deign to comment on it is good news for CSR promoters. The policy is itching enough that they feel they must scratch it.
Post a Comment