Archives

ethics - Terra Infirma


Browse All

1 February 2012

Adam Smith's Invisible Brain

I was watching BBC's Daily Politics on Monday to catch the latest on the RBS bonus affair that I had just blogged on, and, lo, there was an item on responsible capitalism. They focussed on B&Q, an excellent example of responsible business, but fell into the old trap of thinking the scope of corporate social responsibility begins and ends with supporting the local community. But then, in the interests of balance, up popped a chap from the Adam Smith Institute to declare that CSR was "a tax on the consumer."

Deep breath.

Count to ten.

This is the economics of Milton Friedman - that the only responsibility of an business is to maximise profits for shareholders. Well, we're still living with the consequences of that sort of thinking - the sub prime bubble, Ponzi-style financial "products", bank crashes, debt crises, the age of austerity etc, etc. Throughout history, unrestrained markets - in this case financial markets - have bubbled and burst with painful consequences - not least to the shareholders that Friedman claims should be put first, second and last. Left to itself, Adam Smith's famous invisible hand sometimes punches us in the face.

Let's face facts. Business operates in society, society exists in the environment. To state the bleedin' obvious, businesses - and therefore the supply side of the economy - are made up of people. The demand side of the economy is made up of people. Business is a social issue, people delivering value to people in return for financial reward. You can't get away from that.

And even from a narrowly financial point of view, CSR is good business. Marks & Spencer has made a tidy profit on Plan A, doing the "heavy lifting" on environmental and social issues on behalf of their customers who clearly see that as added value rather than an added cost. B&Q is the fourth largest home improvement chain in the world, so their environmental and social projects have hardly held them back. Procter & Gamble is the highest ranked consumer goods company on the Forbes Global 2000 list, yet they give away their water purification product for free to people in developing countries.

As a consumer I buy from all three because of that added value. And would you rather have shares in a responsible, successful business like these as opposed to worthless shares in an irresponsibly crashed bank?

The title of this post is tongue-in-cheek, by the way. I'm not saying the guys at the Adam Smith Institute are stupid, in fact they are possibly a little too clever to fully understand the real world around them. A little less IQ and a little more EQ (emotional intelligence) might set them in better stead.

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 2 responses

25 January 2012

CSR becomes the political zeitgeist


All of a sudden corporate social responsibility has been thrust into the UK political spotlight. The three major party leaders have spent the last few months jostling for pole position, and business secretary Vince Cable has this week published proposals for more transparency on executive pay which is probably the hottest of the current hot potatoes.

Now in the interests of transparency, I should make it clear I'm a Liberal Democrat party member and councillor, but I try to keep this blog free from party politics. So I'm not going to critique the different party records on this - if you want an good objective assessment, try this piece by Allegra Stratton in the Guardian. I will reflect instead on the opportunities and threats posed by the current emphasis on this issue.

Overall, this debate can only be a good thing - the whole point of our democratic system is for the opposition to keep snapping at the heels of Government and keep them on their toes, so competition for who's making the boldest calls is welcome. Previously politicians have shown far too much obeisance to big business, especially those who employ large numbers of people in unemployment blackspots, but now we have a great opportunity to make some movement in the right direction. Also, the debate itself can lead to cultural change. If the zeitgeist is that excessive pay is evil, then those setting pay levels will think twice before continuing with business as usual.

However, there are a number of threats. Firstly that political point scoring can lead to a focus on issues which are easily translated into newspaper headlines rather than getting to the underlying (and relatively dull) issue. For example, there's been much debate over a putative bonus for one bank chief, when the nub of the problem is the more technocratic issue of linking reward to performance.

Secondly, crafty politicians and political journalists like to try and undermine good proposals using an extreme exception to the rule. OK, the ill-fated Lehman Brothers bank was sort of a co-operative, but evidence shows that co-operatives on average are more responsible than other business structures, so we shouldn't let that one bad apple spoil the barrel.

Thirdly, getting regulation right is difficult. There is a massive risk of unintended consequences with major changes, and fear of getting egg on their faces often drives politicians to be conservative (with a small 'c'!) in their ambition. This fear is exacerbated by the fragility of the economy. Therefore change is more likely to be incremental than revolutionary.

Of course, the best solution is for business to voluntarily embrace true corporate social responsibility. This means going beyond a few handouts and embracing values like fairness, equity, transparency, respect and co-operation. That view might seem naive to some, but there is a stack of evidence that more ethical businesses do better financially than their bottom-line fixated equivalents. The new maxim is "doing well by doing good" and business would do well to adopt it so they can come up with solutions which work for them, rather than being bent into uncomfortable positions by politicians.

If they don't act, they can't complain if CSR is forced upon them.

Photo credits: Creative Commons Licences: David Cameron and Nick Clegg photos are from the World Economic Forum, Ed Miliband from Mandate for Change

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

31 January 2011

Rags & Riches - the Ethics of Charity

There's a wonderful ethics case study in the press today - a rag trade dealer has made £10m since 2008 from running the Salvation Army's clothing donations 'business'. The Guardian ran the story on its front page, contrasting the dealer's £1m mansion with pictures of virtuous souls pushing bin bags of old clothes into recycling banks.

What you have to read on to discover is that the charity made £16m out of the deal - more than 60% of the turnover. Just to put that in perspective, the best charity Christmas cards donate about 20% of the retail price to charity (and the worst a miserly 4%). So in a sane world, the headline should be "recycling clothing is three times more cost effective for charities than selling Christmas cards".

So why the fuss?

In a word, trust. The charity sector has a long record of misleading the public. In my youth I once "sponsored" a child with a major charity only to find afterwards that the money went to projects in "the surrounding area", rather than to the welfare of the child herself. In the meantime the charity would send me a monthly letter full of pictures of other starving children with pleas for more money. The child was just being exploited as bait and I felt cheated. A few years ago, a charity executive defended this sort of sharp practice in the press saying the public was not so naive to think that a small donation could make a difference. That's not only disingenuous but illogical - if the public isn't fooled, then why are they letting themselves be fooled?

Compared to this, I think the Salvation Army are angels. I am in no doubt that they are getting a good deal in keeping 60+% of the proceeds of the clothing collections. No one could argue that a process of this size shouldn't involve for-profit organisations - there isn't a vast web of not-for-profit logistics companies out there. Their problem is transparency - to maintain trust and protect their brand, they need to be much more open. If every recycling bank had a statement that 40% of proceeds get absorbed by commercial partners, then no one has the right to complain, not even the media on a slow news day.

Skeletons in cupboards are hostages to fortunes. It is always better to throw them out than wait for the press to start sniffing around for a story.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

6 December 2010

Questions, questions, questions?

• To what extent are you responsible for your staff?

• To what extent are you responsible for the well being of people working in your supply chain?

• To what extent are you responsible for the environmental performance of your supply chain?

• To what extent are you responsible for the well being of people using your product?

• To what extent are you responsible for the environmental or social impacts of your product in use?

• To what extent are you responsible for the safe disposal of your product?

• Are stakeholders in your product’s lifecycle treated equally well irrespective of nationality, ethnicity, gender, disability or income?

• Is it acceptable to make a profit from the impacts of climate change?

• Is it acceptable to make a profit from tackling climate change?

• Is it acceptable to make a profit from the poor?

• How ‘green’ or ‘ethical’ does a product or service have to be before you can sell it as such?

(Questions extracted from my next book, The Green Executive, available May 2011)

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

1 April 2010

Ethical Questions

I've been working on a chapter of The Green Executive covering personal and corporate values. This is probably the trickiest chapter of all as personal values are by definition subjective. As corporate values flow from personal values, the subjectivity flows with them. I'm an engineer by education, so I like things to be objective and it takes me a while to frame subjective issues properly - many industrialists have the same problem.

Here are some ethical questions when it comes to going green:

• To what extent are you responsible for your staff?
• To what extent are you responsible for the well being of people working in your supply chain?
• To what extent are you responsible for the environmental performance of your supply chain?
• To what extent are you responsible for the well being of people using your product?
• To what extent are you responsible for the environmental or social impacts of your product in use?
• To what extent are you responsible for the safe disposal of your product?
• Are stakeholders in your product’s lifecycle treated equally well irrespective of nationality, ethnicity, gender, disability or income?
• Is it OK to make a profit from the impacts of climate change?
• Is it OK to make a profit from tackling climate change?
• Is it OK to make a profit from the poor?
• How ‘green’ or ‘ethical’ does a product or service have to be before you can sell it as such?

Tricky, aren't they. I can't give you the answer, either, you've got to decide for yourself!

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

7 September 2009

There's more to it than money...

Last Friday I was editing the nine interviews I have carried out with CSR/environment executives for book#2, The Green Executive. Reading through all nine in quick succession, it struck me how few of them were driven primarily by cost savings. While cost is a factor, the majority say that an overriding factor is company image. Building a trustworthy, progressive and friendly image will enhance sales, win contracts and attract and retain good staff. All of this will improve the bottom line. But there's more than this - the interviewees talk about bringing their values to the workplace and greater personal satisfaction that they are doing something for the greater good.

So we have to remember two points:

1. The financial benefits to going green are much wider and greater than cutting utility and raw material costs. This has to be understood and factored into investment decisions (the next edition of The Low Carbon Agenda will address this in more detail).

2. We should not forget the deeper, philosophical questions about who we are and why we do what we do as soon as we enter our workplaces. We should not feel, or be made to feel, guilty for doing the right thing.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 2 responses

30 September 2008

Are we at a point where Sustainability = sustainability?

I'm not an economist, but here's my take on the current financial situation. The bank crashes are due to the bubble bursting in the 'sub prime' mortgage market - too much money lent to too many people who can't afford to pay it back - a clear Corporate Social Responsibility issue (that's real grown up CSR, not the paper thin small-local-donations type CSR). We are also afflicted by 'short selling' - betting on shares losing value has serious ethical implications too - gambling on horses losing is illegal in many countries for good reason. Other industries and the general public are struggling with high and rising oil prices (an environmental issue) - leading to a breakdown in consumer confidence which furthers the vicious circle.

Sustainability with a big 'S' is about economics, environment and ethics. In the past there has been a need to differentiate between this and the small 's' sustainability ie the medium term viability of an organisation. But now I believe the two have converged and Sustainability is not an option when it comes to sustainability. Proper CSR would have saved the banks, and energy efficiency and/or a distributed energy system would make the economy much less dependent on the price of oil.

Maybe now we will wake up and smell the (sustainably sourced) coffee.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane one response

Free monthly bulletin:

By Gareth Kane

Everything you need to know to integrate sustainability into the DNA of your business.

Submit button

By Gareth Kane

A highly accessible, practical guide to those who want to introduce sustainability into their business or organization quickly and effectively.

Submit button

Learn how to help your business go green from the comfort of your desk..

View events