1

Roger C. Altman, in his piece, Globalization in Retreat: Further Geopolitical

Consequences of the Financial Crisis, argues simply that globalization itself is abating in

a way that destabilizes the world economy and exposes weaknesses between countries’

economic avenues. He posits that the world has shied away from economically global

policies because developing and developed countries have seen them as harmful to their

economies, seeing greater success with protectionist policies. He ultimately asserts that

“the role of the state Global economic and financial integration are reversing. The role of

the state, together with financial and trade protectionism, is ascending” (2009: 54).

Dr. Timothy Devinney, in his journal article, Is the Socially Responsible

Corporation a Myth? The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Corporate Social

Responsibility, fronts a question central to the existence of the Corporate Social

Responsibility (henceforth “CSR”), but ultimately admits that a socially responsible

corporation is an utter myth in today’s society. Devinney observes that, ostensibly, “the

corporation has little, if any, obligation to the society other than the creation of economic

rents that can accrue to the stakeholders with recognized rights to those rents,” but then

the more expansive, alternate view that “the corporation should serve as an instrument of

public policy by other means” (2009:44). Both, he argues, comprise the nature of CSR.

His call for a “more complex multifaceted approach to CSR: one that is simultaneously

skeptical and embracing” appears at the end of his piece, but relies on the assumption of

the ‘corporation’ as an important social actor in today’s global society (2009:54).

Altman’s assertions about the rate of economic globalization not only slowing but

retreating seem deeply near-sighted due to the date of publication and also ignores the
 2

role of the global corporation in globalized society. To the first point, the former Deputy

Treasury Secretary uses the mere fact that three leading economic countries – France, the

UK, and Germany – did not initially agree on a response to the crisis across the Atlantic

and shows that the “lack of strength and unity in the West is untimely, because the crash

will increase geopolitical instability,” an argument that dooms the world of redemption

while not considering the policies that can be put in place to reverse the crisis (2009:2).

Towards the end of his article, he belies his own point that “President Obama … has a

uniquely influential podium, which he could use to espouse the benefits of globalization

and market liberalization,” while belittling the other policy solutions that were

undertaken soon after the financial crisis that eventually balanced the world economy

under President Obama (2009: 7). His overall ignorance of these possibilities

characterizes his argument as extremely biased in pushing neoliberal and protectionist

policies, something that has not necessarily come to fruition on as wide of a scale.

Devinney, while making the correct argument that we misrepresent CSR in some

conversations about business ethics, stumbles in his discussion in the essence of business

goals fundamentally clashing with those of social advancements at most turns.

Specifically, his discussion focuses on the fact that “no investigation can assume that the

goal of the corporation is to be guided by the need to use CSR for ‘good’ alone,” making

the case that a corporation will also be concerned about its image to its clientele/customer

base (2009:54). Further, his observations remain in the realm of already practiced forms

of CSR, ones that often don’t result in the company being fully responsible. A deeper

exposition on the essence of a business being inherently at odds with that of an

 3

organization working for the public would be useful to his central question, a question

lost in his focus on CSR in its existence today.

These two arguments, while about different aspects of businesses in today’s

global society, oppose each other as Devinney focuses on the company’s role in

enforcing and leading social change in CSR while Altman puts a heavy onus on each

government’s leaders to resolve conflicts and work on the political stage to cause social

change. Devinney’s argument seems more realistic in that a global corporation has a

larger amount of sway that than of a government at times, but he would also likely say

that it is both the public and private sectors responsibility to maintain the public welfare.

Altman’s points on protectionist policies being more prevalent may influence the global

corporation’s sway in the world, but his analysis only extends into the proximity of the

financial crisis of the last decade, not foreseeing large social issues such as climate

change, workplace inequality, and trade agreement modifications coming to the forefront

of both the public and private sectors. In this way, Devinney’s vision that a socially

responsible business may provide clues for a more socially responsible government,

causing both to advance the world.

 4

References

Devinney, Timothy M. May 2009. “Is the Socially Responsible Corporation a Myth? The

Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Perspectives. 44-56.

Altman, Roger C. July/August 2009. “Globalization in Retreat: Further Geopolitical

Consequences of the Financial Crisis.” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 88 (No. 4): 2-7.
5