 | To Our Readers |
Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? |
Finally, the anti-globalists have been gaining strength. Following Seattle in 1999, the anti-globalist movement has become increasingly articulate, well-organized and well-connected. Their main charge is that globalization has robbed states of the power to shape the economic future. This power, they say, has passed to the multinational companies. Big business roams the world in search of profits, subject to no governmental control. True enough, there are international organizations like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO laying down rules of conduct. But these rules, it is alleged, are drawn up in the interests of the multinational corporations. For example, pharmaceutical companies introduced TRIPS -- trade-related property rights -- into the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in order to protect their patents. These rights, it is claimed, prevent the sale of cheap drugs to poor African countries to combat AIDS and other diseases.
The current attacks on business raise two serious issues concerning the ethics of modern capitalism that need to be distinguished, though they are often lumped together. The first concerns corporate governance and is chiefly to do with the prevalence of accounting practices that enable companies to cook their books. The second is about businesses' social responsibility -- how far corporations should pursue objectives other than maximizing profits. The first is about honesty, the second about the social role of business.
As Peter Martin wrote recently in the Financial Times, there has been a loss of consensus on the true purposes of accounting. In the past, "it was a tool for the board to assess the performance of managers, and for investors to assess the company with its peers." Today, it is increasingly used as an instrument of "earnings management" -- presenting earnings in such a way as to manage share prices -- and to redistribute profits silently from shareholders to senior managers.
Some of the accounting practices that enabled these things to happen were legal; others were fraudulent. Reforms aim at strengthening corporate governance by ensuring, among other things, the independence of board members and company auditors.
However, this set of problems concerning business ethics, while capable of unleashing savage denunciations of corporate greed, must be distinguished from the line of attack that aims to hold business "socially accountable." Here it is the pursuit of profit as such, not how profits are divided between different owners, that is the offense. The current attack on the pursuit of profit is the contemporary expression of socialism in a world in which the traditional socialist political project is dead.
Corporate social responsibility is big business's response to this assault. Its background is the current debate among academics and business analysts about the role of business. The division is between those who believe that firms ought to maximize profits and those who believe they should, as corporate citizens, work for the good of society.
Of course, those who say that a firm should seek to maximize its profits believe it should do so honestly and legally. Managers should not steal the property of their shareholders. It is for government to put a limit to net profit through the tax system. It is also for government to protect the general interest of society as determined through the voting system.
However, there is a long tradition in economics, going back to Adam Smith, that argues that in pursuing its own interest, a firm also serves the general interest of society. As Adam Smith put it in "The Wealth of Nations":
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer and the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love.
"[The businessman] neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... [but] is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."
The invisible hand is the most powerful metaphor in economics. But Smith recognized that the coincidence of public and private interest depended on a number of conditions, the chief of which was the absence of monopoly.
The doctrine of corporate social responsibility challenges this tradition head-on. A big company exists to promote not just the interests of its owners but all those who might be affected by its decisions -- its employees, its customers, its contractors, the community in which it is located, the environment. It should seek to protect and enlarge human rights, to raise standards of health and safety and to work for equal opportunities, the reduction of poverty and inequality and various other good causes. In the jargon, it should try and maximize the welfare of a large number of stakeholders -- the reverse of the task set it by Adam Smith.
A key point is that financial accounting should be replaced by social accounting. For example, Shell International calculates the net value that its companies add to the world in terms of sustainable development, the environment and social progress, which has led one critic, David Henderson, to remark that Shell's project is to "maximize the firm's net contribution to the welfare of the world."
If the well-being of society rather than profitability is to be the main concern of business, what is the role of profits? Some proponents of socially responsible business argue that the extra tasks that social responsibility imposes on a firm will improve a business's long-term profitability -- for example, by giving it a better reputation. Others seem to believe that profits should be a residual -- what is left over for the owners after they have fulfilled their social tasks.
Damaging objections can be raised against both views. The main economic objection to the doctrine, in either of its forms, is that anything that raises the cost of doing business is likely to slow down the creation of wealth. This might not matter much for rich countries, but it could be disastrous for poor and middle-income countries. Corporate social responsibility also confuses the roles of business and politics. It suggests that business can (and should) take over some of the functions of government. But why should unaccountable groups claim responsibility for social decision-making. Businessmen are often good at making money, but there is little evidence that they are good at running countries.
One can readily understand the appeal of corporate social responsibility, especially in a country like Russia, where for years under President Boris Yeltsin, the oligarchs, in effect, stole national property. It now pays for them to set themselves up as great humanitarians whose mission statements rival the Sermon on the Mount in their benevolence. But we should remember the fable of Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf.
It will be recalled that the Big Bad Wolf, having gobbled up the grandmother, put on her clothes so as to disarm the suspicions of Little Red Riding Hood, preparatory to another satisfactory meal. Businessmen don't suddenly become benevolent by parading their social concerns. They still have sharp teeth. Firms exist to make profits for their owners. Governments and markets exist to channel their predatory instincts into beneficial channels. This has been the history of capitalism, and nothing has happened to change the plot.
Robert Skidelsky is professor of political economy at Warwick University, England, and a nonexecutive director of Stilwell Financial Inc. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.
A Message from The Moscow Times:
Dear readers,
We are facing unprecedented challenges. Russia's Prosecutor General's Office has designated The Moscow Times as an "undesirable" organization, criminalizing our work and putting our staff at risk of prosecution. This follows our earlier unjust labeling as a "foreign agent."
These actions are direct attempts to silence independent journalism in Russia. The authorities claim our work "discredits the decisions of the Russian leadership." We see things differently: we strive to provide accurate, unbiased reporting on Russia.
We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. But to continue our work, we need your help.
Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It's quick to set up, and every contribution makes a significant impact.
By supporting The Moscow Times, you're defending open, independent journalism in the face of repression. Thank you for standing with us.
Not ready to support today?
Remind me later.
Remind me later.
×
Remind me next month
Thank you! Your reminder is set.
We will send you one reminder email a month from now. For details on the personal data we collect and how it is used, please see our Privacy Policy.