I would like to propose a new idea.

Let’s start a movement (petition wise or something) that raises votes to abolish the arms industry. Completely shut it down, I mean, you can’t wage war if there’s no weapons to do so with, and if you still want to, you can go at each other with sticks and knifes or something, no longer bothering innocent people with your bullocks.

The idea to push governments to shut down the investment in weapons and closing down the military seems reasonably impossible and –no doubt, people’ll start calling me a short-sighted idealist again. Then first of I’d like to point them to the philosophical argument of being an idealist (because I agree, I am one, yet not a short-sighted one), which would be idealism is; the philosophical theory that maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas.

-So, if a realist would come to me and argue of safety, I’d challenge him or her to quantify safety as an independent entity. Safety is a psychological entity that only exists in ideas or mind. I assure you that by abolishing the weapons industry we will be ‘safer’ as there are lesser external threads on the internal concept of safety. So that’s point one, point two would be that the world is more and more connected, and more and more people seem willing to overcome nationality, background, or ‘cultural heritage’ in favour of collaborating, discussing and creating a world that is ‘one’. Making it increasingly viable to –well, just give it a try. Governments are to be (especially in countries that claim to be democratic) subject to the people, and this would be an interesting chance to see whether or not we truly do live in a democracy.

Who’s with me?

Join the facebook group please.

But where are we headed? Is evolution still purely biological or can we argue it has become a conscious development? One about the choices we make, about how we live our lives, what the function of manmade technology within evolution?

The term ‘Uomo Universalis’ -or Polymath (“universal man” or “man of the world”) is a term that may help us with the ‘looking forward’ of evolution. We are in a time (in the West) that we can afford ourselves (and technical support enabled us) to keep learning throughout our lives. Next to that we also see increased social pressure of having to be ‘up to date’ on all sorts of whimsical TV-series, hollow news coverage and gossip of all sorts.

What if we would spend that time on actually finding fulfilment in the ‘search for knowledge’? How would we live, how would the political landscape look? Probably most importantly, how would our educational system be reformed? (I’m saying reformed because I’m quite sure it would, but maybe you think differently?) Would we be happier -or not? Is ignorance bliss? Would we still be feeding our kids Ritalin? Or would we motivate them to put their energy into arts, learning and social interaction? Would we still say; what can I do about poverty, world hunger and political corruption? Or would we group, set up an alternative structure and change the situation? Would there be war? (I mean, even now it seems pretty dumb to think that killing someone stays without reaction right?)

What is the potential of human beings is what I’m really asking here. How can we fulfil the tasks and responsibilities we have and develop ourselves and thereby develop the way we stand in accord to the world?

“A (hu)man can do all things if he will.” (Leon Battista Alberti)

What do you reckon?

Peace and Love

A bit opportunistic perhaps, but I felt like writing something on the subject of my thesis, so I did. The thesis is in its final stages and consists of a range of interviews with; David Fellah, Herbert van Hoogdalem, Dan Germain, Mikal Hallstrup and last, but surely not least, Sir Richard Branson. Also, a survey with 150 respondents, loads of literature review and the text here would, I think, be classified as my conclusions without the sources. Hope you enjoy it.

Throughout the process of compiling the thesis I came across several often returning ‘tag-words’ if you wish. One of them; ethics, others; transparency, genuine behaviour and long-term strategy. These four ‘drivers’ so to say, are very important in implementing a CSR strategy. In my personal opinion, Dan Germain put it very well, CSR is not a strategy, it is part of the DNA of a company. Yet, I would like to say, it is not the DNA of the company, it is the DNA of the people behind the company.

The most important part, when it comes to social behaviour, is that it needs to be true, the truthfulness, of CSR, no matter what it’s business or communication consequences, is vital in even considering implementing a strategy as such. Although currently CSR is becoming somewhat of a ‘trendy thing to be in’ and a popular thing to implement, in the base, it should be a feeling of people who control the larger sums of money in this world, to do ‘something good’. This, in times of declining world economies, based on unclear, confusing financial constructs, leaving, hardworking, honest people bankrupt, job- and homeless, is a message received with a heartfelt cheer by activists, political left and right-wingers, consumers and non-consumers.

This, as touched upon earlier (in the thesis that is), is also the risk. In times of superficial entertainment, de-humanised wars (on the Western side of the equation), increased negative outlooks on world economy, the return of ‘pirates’ in our daily news and the continued callings of the ruling western spiritual leader- the Pope, to not use condoms in Africa, news, which is ‘true, ‘good’ or ‘positive’ is received with great enthusiasm and appreciation, without looking much further into the matter.

Companies have a responsibility to, if they choose to, be truthful, transparent and ‘in for the long run’, when it comes to Corporate Social Responsibility. The interesting conclusion I came to, through talking to the ‘business-leaders’ for this thesis, is that most of them claimed companies have more ‘power’ to instigate change than governments do. This, I personally believe to be true, it is also interesting to see the response coming back in the questionnaire, in which the respondents show an obvious ‘pro’ corporate responsibility and are willing to pay more, with money being the ruling paradigm in our world, I find this a very interesting development. This also indicates, I believe, a system change, in which companies are going to be ‘platform creators’ in which civilians are to participate, thereby, together, creating a world of which one can be proud.

The ‘change in the system’ cannot be ‘announced’ with any light concern to the ruling ideas that are here now, and therefore, I found a nice and ‘simple’ illustration to accompany it, I believe (based upon the 6 product-phases Eger has once proposed).

When we look at the process of becoming who we are today we, as a species, have had a long journey (and still a long way to go?). When we first got up on our two hind legs (homo erectus), we had to start evolving ourselves in several ways, in a physical way, which lead to the emergence of the species of homo sapiens (Performance). After that we started to optimise our bodily functions that lead to increasing mental development (Optimisation). Through that optimisation we began to develop skills other homo sapiens had not (itemisation). Through that we were lead to segmentation by the skills we had attained, worker class, bourgeoisie and royal (segmentation). When this wasn’t enough anymore we started to individualise which lead to the last couple of decades of the self (individualisation). Which brings us to where we are now. Awareness.

As such, I believe, we humans are increasingly ‘aware’ of what is happening around us, mind me, we are merely at the beginning of this stage, but as seen in (and enabled by) the increase of communication means we have at our disposal, internet ‘activism’, for instance, is an increasingly important mean to people who wish to ‘change the world’ and, even in mainstream news gathering, becoming a force to be reckoned with.

If a company or brand chooses to indulge itself into a strategy that addresses social behaviour of the company itself, it needs to be heartfelt, I would even say, they should not even want to communicate it. Although this, especially coming from a communication student, is perhaps not the most ‘financially profitable’ way of going about it, surely would indicate it’s sincerity.

The core beliefs of wanting to be a ‘Good Global Citizen’ should come from within a company, otherwise they cannot be lived, and therefore they will, most likely at some point, fail to be responsible, resulting in a massive spanking. Corporate Social Responsibility can be a very useful and profitable addition to a company strategy, what is vital it to realise how much you will lose if you do not treat a strategy as such with honesty, sincerity and loyalty, it is a long-term, costly and hard process and one not to be taken lightly.