Saturday, May 25, 2019

Societal Problems and Corporations: Should Business Do More?


SOCIETAL PROBLEMS AND CORPORATIONS: Should Business Do More?


Ajit Chaudhuri – April 2019

I.            

Background

The world is in deep trouble, according to many analyses. People are frustrated for various reasons; stagnant wages, increasing inequality, the effect of technology on jobs, uncertainty regarding the future, inter alia – in turn leading to anger, nationalism and xenophobia. Leading democracies have descended into dysfunction, exacerbating public frustration. Society is unnerved by fundamental economic changes and with the failure of the state to provide lasting solutions, and trust in multilateralism and official institutions is crumbling. These make for a fragile global landscape that is susceptible to short-term behavior by corporations and governments, in turn leading to market uncertainty, decreasing confidence, and an increased risk of a cyclical downturn.
II.       

Should the Corporate Sector Do Something?

Some suggest that it should! The UN system, for example, has designed the Sustainable Development Goals with the participation and involvement of the corporate sector in mind (their precursor, the Millennium Development Goals, required only the state, the UN system and NGOs to be on board), recognizing that business brings in critical elements – systems and processes, innovation, technology, capital, focus on results – for targets to have a realistic chance of being met. Most multilateral institutions and NGOs now have departments that seek partnership with the corporate sector to further their agendas, though in many cases the terms ‘partnership’ and ‘cheque signing’ are synonyms in these times of decimated budgets. Countries too expect businesses operating within to do so keeping social responsibilities in mind, with India going to the extent of mandating a minimum expenditure for companies on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) related activities. Academia is in a race to identify a new type of capitalism that does not bring to mind connections with robber barons, unrestrained markets and inequitable growth, with terms such as ‘compassionate capitalism’ (which does not externalize environmental and ecological damages, lessens the gap between executive and rank-and-file pay, and is transparent in its dealings with regulators and other stakeholders) and ‘progressive capitalism’ (which seeks a new social contract between voters and elected officials, workers and corporations, rich and poor, and those with jobs and those un or under employed[1]) vying for prominence.


Others are not so certain! Public trust in the corporate sector is low, and to many the thought of its involvement in addressing societal problems, or in fact in anything more than providing goods and services of adequate quality and employing people on fair terms, would be tantamount to the state abdicating its responsibilities, to backdoor privatization of public service provision, and generally to ‘a fox repairing a henhouse’.


Corporate leaders’ own views on whether the sector should address societal issues differ according to the type of business they are in (also including its profitability, size, type of ownership, and the globality of its operations) and the personal predilections of the leaders. 


The views themselves usually fall within four broad categories[2].


The first are adherents to the traditional viewpoint that ‘the business of business is business’ and that ‘corporate social responsibility is to maximize profit’. They recognize that producing the goods and services that people demand, employing them on fair terms, observing the law and paying taxes is difficult enough (and requires all one’s energies), and anything more transgresses into the realm of the state.


The second are a variant of the first in that they subscribe to the traditional viewpoint but, for different reasons, do not want to be seen as such and therefore direct their corporate communications and PR departments to project a progressive image with liberal usage of terms such as ‘triple bottom line’ and ‘social license to operate’.


The third are those who recognize that, to prosper over time, companies need to deliver financial performance and show that they make a positive contribution to society. They look within the companies they lead to enable this by creating a sense of purpose without which the company would sacrifice investments in capital, innovation and employee development and provide sub-par returns to investors[3]. Such companies are close to the communities they serve and have a strong CSR culture.


The fourth are those who believe that ‘there is a special place in hell for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight’[4] and want to advocate for change towards addressing pressing socio-economic issues. They look to set their own companies right (as above) and to engage with external stakeholders (the state, the political space, other corporates, and NGOs) for this. They may also run businesses with products/services that directly address societal problems.
III.          


Conclusion

There are varying opinions on the corporate sector doing more about the societal problems described in section I. At one extreme, there is a view that business should stick to what it knows, which is producing goods and services while simultaneously employing people, observing laws and paying taxes. Others suggest to differing degrees that business is a force for good, it has advantages in the form of bright people, strong systems and processes, capital, and the ability to innovate and use technology, and these should be harnessed to address intractable societal problems. Whether the corporate sector can do so and, if so, what it should do is entirely another matter.


[1] Stiglitz, Joseph E, ‘Progressive Capital is not an Oxymoron’, Opinion piece in NY Times issue of 19 April 2019
[2] There is a zero-eth category of leaders who see opportunities in lax regulation, poor enforcement and vague accountability to maximize profits at the cost of societal wellbeing, and they are not included in the analysis.
[3] Larry Fink’s (of Blackrock) annual letters since 2012 provide a perspective on the need for responsible business.
[4] Paraphrased from the Martin Luther King Jr. speech ‘Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence’, Riverside Church, NY City, 4th April 1967.

No comments: