The idea that whoever you are you can learn to do better seems like an intriguing starting point for changing society, but many have balked at such an all-encompassing interpretation of responsible and ethical behaviour. The diversity of opinions of what constitutes responsible practice seems open to a plurality of interpretations. A report on corporate responsibility research and education in The Financial Times in the UK seemed to agree, recognising that the interpretation of CSR varies from one business college to another and from country to country. 13 However, the paper suggests that some good, early research would clarify the true meaning of corporate social responsibility.

Such a view that suggests the possibility of discovering a singular truth about CSR seems to be defied by the way language and knowledge is used in a diverse world of shifting expectations, perceptions and motivations. For instance, in responding to a report criticising his company, Willie Tan, president of Tan Holdings Corporation of Saipan, retorted that the 'report was wrong when it used the term "sweatshop" to refer to our clean, air-conditioned facilities'.

Similar language games were being played at the Winter Olympics. In February, following a protest by the American Anti-Slavery Group and the Free Burma Coalition that parts of the 2002 Winter Olympic Torchbearer uniforms were made in Burma, the media relations department of the Salt Lake Organising Committee riposted that the 'torch relay clothes were not made in Burma. They were manufactured in Myanmar.'

We might laugh off the second quote with a knowing smile. We might also regard some of the postmodern play with language as slightly off-the-wall. However, there are some significant issues regarding the way that destructive power relations are perpetuated through our ways of systemically and often unknowingly privileging certain discourses, types of knowledge and certain 'expert' voices over others.

In a London workshop organised by the New Academy of Business in March, there was a deliberate attempt to shake up the sometimes-cosy world of corporate citizenship debate and practice in Europe with some vibrantly real voices from the global South. Claudia Blanco and Lesbia Guerero from Nicaragua were funded to visit the UK and spent two weeks speaking their own truths about the realities facing them in their daily struggle of working in plantations and factories. This was one of the first times that a workshop of CSR professionals was confronted with people from the farms and factory floors that form the backdrop to corporate citizenship practice. Claudia and Lesbia repeatedly brought proceedings and rather distant discussions about procedures for monitoring and reporting back to the very real problems of poor workplace practices for their lives as working mothers. The workshop was part of a piece of research exploring codes of conduct, which takes a specifically gender-based perspective on issues of corporate responsibility. 14

Women have been particularly active in moving forward corporate practices elsewhere. Following an international activist campaign co-ordinated by Burma Campaign UK, the UK's leading lingerie brand Triumph eventually 'reneged' on its commitment to Burmese production and announced plans to withdraw its facilities from Rangoon. Its response to the consumer boycott was to note that the public debate in Europe on the political situation in Burma is one 'that has become increasingly emotional and that has led to planning uncertainties which Triumph can no longer accept'.

Meanwhile, in February, Dita Sari, the prominent labour rights and social justice advocate from Indonesia, announced that she had reconsidered an earlier decision to accept a Reebok Human Rights Award. Ms Sari said:

"On the one hand, this is a kind of recognition of the struggle and the hard work that we have done for years. But on the other hand, we are very conscious of the condition of the Reebok workers from the third world countries. As a trade union, we strongly put a lot of pressure to achieve what every worker deserves: higher wages, better working conditions and a brighter future for their children. The low pay and exploitation of the workers of Indonesia, Mexico and Vietnam are the main reasons why we will not accept this award."

Another woman made international news in March as she was imprisoned for her views on the Indian legal system. The prize-winning author Arundhati Roy is also known for her stand against 'the collaboration between western corporations and the Indian ruling establishment', the Narmada Dam and the effect of globalisation on India. 15 In an article on the flowering of feminism across the global South, Madeleine Bunting argued that Roy's 'feminism is not about imitating masculine models of achievement or competition, nor about sexual power; it is not about glass ceiling or stilettos. Her feminism is about articulating a voice and a sensibility which is authentically feminine and offers no deference to a largely male-determined status quo.' She noted that 'Roy is not a one off; she is standing on the shoulders of thousands of grassroots woman activists.' 15

In the West, women are already playing key roles in communities of corporate citizenship practice, as illustrated by the hundreds of members of the CSR Chicks network in London. Despite this, the relevance of feminism to the practice of corporate citizenship has not been widely recognised. This is a pity, as feminist insights into corporate power could prove valuable for thinking and practice on corporate citizenship.