Broader Media Responsibilities

Beyond news reporting, the media sector faces a number of responsibility challenges, such as the type and level of advertising, an issue highlighted by the State of the World 2004 publication, which chronicled the role of advertising industries in driving unsustainable consumption around the world.70 Other challenges include privacy issues, intellectual property protection, and the nature of media content - films, documentaries, music and so on. The potential of the media sector to influence society in its discussion of public issues was highlighted by the eco-disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow. Its release heralded a spike in global media discussion of global warming, as popular television shows and tabloid newspapers discussed the representation and the reality of climate change catalysed by the Hollywood block buster; with the Greenland shelf melting, fears of rising tides and plunging temperatures trickled into media not normally pre-occupied with environmental agendas. Interestingly, the film itself was 'carbon neutral', meaning that the makers invested in tree-planting to offset the carbon emissions involved in producing the film. This reminds us that media companies are not exempt from those issues that face any corporation, such as environmental management, labour rights, and community relations in their own operations and those of their suppliers.

Some small enterprises like the TV production firm Lucita71, and the UK communications companies Futerra and Ethical Media72, have made their attention to such issues integral to their business. Ethical Media works for a range of clients in the nonprofit sector, and companies engaged in corporate responsibility. "We only work on projects we believe in" says founding director Marco Kuntze, which he argues creates a better service for clients as it generates a commitment and hence creativity and efficiency. In addition, they seek to conduct their business in line with environmental best practices. Kuntze considers he has a growing niche, as various companies begin to consider their responsibilities to society, while the mainstream media and communications industries have yet to engage fully in the CSR agenda (apart from advertising firms like St Lukes, for example).

Fifteen larger media companies in the UK have launched a new initiative aimed at correcting this lack of engagement, or at least correcting that impression.73 Members of the CSR Media Forum include the BBC, ITV, Reuters, Pearson, Trinity Mirror; AOL, Sky, Reed Elsevier, and Capital Radio amongst others. In April, another member, the Guardian Media Group, released a voluminous social audit, which was generally praised by its assessor; Richard Evans, Director of 'Ethics etc' claims in his auditor's statement that the corporation has been 'remarkably thorough and honest.' Evans urges that the company "continue with efforts to reduce energy consumption and waste...significant improvements can be achieved through raising awareness and improving environmental responsibility amongst the staff."74

Movement on corporate media responsibility is somewhat overdue, if we consider that over two years ago both SustainAbility Ltd and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) released reports on media companies, arguing that they were lagging behind other industries.75 Business in the Community (BitC) reported in 2004 that media companies were some of the least responsive to their survey of performance, and scored lowly on their index of responsibility.76 However, the CSR Media Forum feels that the operationalisation of the CSR concept by such groups unfairly labels their companies. It contends that current responsibility questionnaires and indices cohere with retail and manufacturing sectors; these can demonstrate hard, quantifiable changes, such as a reduction in the use of toxic emissions, for example. They argue that the media beast is a different species, requiring different corporate anthropologist to track its movements - its prey, excretions and fertilisations.

It is true that the BitC index, among others, may need upgrading to consider issues that relate to the media sector, such as their advertising policies, programming and or political stances on market liberalisation and ownership consolidation. However, the CSR Media Forum was not making this point. Instead, they argue their role in promoting responsible agendas should be taken into account. Media companies "occupy a unique position in supporting the democratic process by making information, knowledge and a range of opinions openly available and ensuring the public and private institutions are accountable for their behaviour. This is social responsibility in its highest form and should also be recognised," argues the chief executive of Guardian Media Group, Bob Phillis.77 Such justifications for the activities of the mediazed public sphere recall traditional debates about the role of the press as a fourth estate, acting as a watchdog, or guardian, of the nation. It echoes long established pluralistic arguments that the press is an alleged safeguard of democracy - it sniffs out stories power elites would rather see buried. The Guardian itself, as a non-profit making trust, may have grounds for such arguments, but they do not apply to the sector as a whole. 'The media' term deployed by Phillis is rather a loose one: the distinctions between serious journalism and more sensationalist mass-market journalism is not made.

Resuscitating the pluralist paradigm to defend media corporations ignores the debates discussed earlier about the filters on corporate media and the problems with greater consolidation of media ownership in the hands of a few companies. Its suggests that the capitalistic superstructures on which these media mansions are resting will not be subject to a structural survey, to look for signs of dry rot, subsidence, rising damp. Critical intellectuals could usefully enter into dialogue with media practitioners to open up these foundations, and broaden the agenda to consider the responsibilities that arise from influence over information, communication and knowledge.

There is a risk that these laudable toe-dips into the CSR arena will result in self-legitimisation; whilst they might result in recycling bins in neon lit newsrooms, they do not interrogate the very nature of power/knowledge collection, filtering, dissemination and reception. They may confirm existing processes of information production, confirm the self-justification of media practitioners, rather than questioning the ideologies, the compromises, and the 'taken for granted' rules of journalistic games.

There is a need for media initiatives on CSR to look at the broader issues and the public policy implications - to consider their corporate citizenship. This is particularly because the media, communications and entertainment industries are so important in shaping society, so social progress will require all companies in this sector to improve their conduct, not just a select few. Yet, rather like responsible parents of good children at a school parents evening, the more ethically receptive media firms may turn up at CSR meetings; yet those least connected to the CSR agenda, those with greater penetration of popular markets, and therefore huge potential to impact on popular consciousness and behaviour change, are, currently, least likely to sign up to CSR fora.

Indications that tangible results may arise from participation in the CSR Media Forum, came from Reed Elsevier, the world's largest academic publisher. Once firmly opposed to online open access to its publications, in June it was reported to have decided to permit academics to put papers accepted for publication in its print and online journals on to the internet. This could be seen as a socially responsible move, whereas rival publishers felt this was all Machiavellian marketing to defend a business. Some competing publishers have already embraced the open access model, charging academics to publish papers, then making them available to all online.78 This approach also has its drawbacks, by introducing a financial barrier to publication, and creating a business model that relies on people wanting to publish, not wanting to read -- a potential hazard for quality control. How do we address this challenge in the context of the World Review, where this work first appears? Greenleaf publishes it only for subscribers to this journal, but then makes it available at the end of every year, free of charge, on the Internet, in collaboration with Lifeworth, the ethical careers company - which is what you have in front of you.79 To do this requires sponsorship, which then raises issues of which organisations we might want to provide marketing opportunities for or not. Clearly, it is a difficult area.