During the question and answer segment, I asked, “Has Facebook given any thought to creating a corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy to institutionalize programs which alleviate the adverse impacts of its expansion on neighboring communities, namely, Belle Haven and EPA?” According to Mr. Salazar, Facebook’s public policy manager, the answer was, “No.”
Last June, I attended another meeting in EPA, asking the same question. Facebook’s VP of communications and public policy, Elliot Schrage, answered, “We don’t have a CSR department because all departments should be socially responsible.” When Bradshaw highlighted my question in her previous article, a Facebook spokesperson delineated that the corporation has a “community engagement team (e.g. Juan Salazar, Bernita Dillard) akin to a CSR team that meets regularly with people in East Palo Alto, Belle Haven and North Fair Oaks.”
After considering all three answers, I realized: (1) corporations aren’t innately socially responsible, (2) a community engagement team isn’t a codified CSR policy, and (3) Facebook isn’t interested in creating one and it’s better they admit this, than give ad-hoc additions to job descriptions or insulting responses to long-time EPA and Belle Haven residents whose families are being displaced daily, because of the tech giant’s expansion.
While Facebook spokespersons downplay a CSR policy, it should be stated that:
(1) Stanford University's Haas Center for Public Service, whose aim is “a more just and sustainable world” has seven pillars, of which, CSR and social entrepreneurship is one. While Stanford’s also complicit in exacerbating the Bay Area’s housing crisis (they have a 17-year expansion plan on the Peninsula) -- I applaud Stanford’s acknowledgement that with social entrepreneurship comes CSR!
(2) Corporations, such as Starbucks, have CSR departments or strategies which become policies. Mr. Schultz (retired Starbucks CEO) said, “There’s a great need to achieve the fragile balance between profit, social impact, and a moral obligation” to do everything possible “to enhance the lives of our employees and the communities we serve,” in a New York Times interview, last November. I applaud Schultz’s CSR work.
Evidently, Facebook’s more interested in charitable acts than justice. My suggesting a CSR policy moves beyond donating money, towards shifting the culture -- and possibly the mission of the corporation.
Facebook/Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative’s recent donations to EPA:
• $2M for water shortage
• $20M for affordable housing (Catalyst Fund)
• $3M for legal support of tenants facing evictions (Community Legal Services)
That’s $25M. My next questions are: “How much of this money created actual jobs for EPA residents? How is progress being tracked?” Jobs are critical in allowing people, amidst the gentrification spurred by the #TechTakeover, to simultaneously access the wealth of Silicon Valley and afford to live in the community where they grew up.
I’ve been writing on this topic since February 2016, and I gather that ultimately, Facebook’s “bottom line” is expansion. Yet, a CSR policy would limit that expansion, thus conflicting with their bottom line.
At this point, what I find most disconcerting is the white and/or corporate privilege of key decision-makers at Facebook, which allows them the choice -- to not engage fully and long-term to combat the detrimental impacts of their well-intentioned start-up, on both communities. This is unfortunate, because populations of color in EPA and Belle Haven are shrinking daily -- and we don’t have that same luxury.
Lastly, given the current damage and history of corporations entering and erasing similar communities, good intentions aren’t enough.
Dear Facebook, Humanity must become your bottom line!
#EastPaloAlto #BelleHaven #UrbanErasure #TechTakeover #HousingCrisis #CSR #policy #HowardSchulz #Facebook #ChanZuckerbergInitiative #SiliconValley #Gentrification
