Good corporate citizenship?
by Simon Longstaff
This issue of City Ethics deals with issues as apparently different as that of: crime against business, the failure of existing social institutions, the pursuit of happiness and corporate social responsibility. I normally avoid the temptation to synthesise – not least because they can suggest a false harmony belied by the deep complexity that is an enduring fact of our lives. However, on this occasion I will give way to the temptation!
It seems to me that a powerful theme, running through this issue, concerns the possibility of changing our world (personal or institutional) for the better. That is, we don't have to accept things as we find them! We can make a difference! Our choices do matter!
Alas, to recognise the possibility of choice is also to recognise our responsibility to choose well. Fortunately, an ethical choice will frequently turn out to be a prudent one.
Consider the question of how companies might respond to one common form of crime against business. I believe that citizens are likely to accept the electronic tagging of merchandise as a defence against shoplifting. The reason for this is that tagging only becomes operational when somebody commits an offence; otherwise it is inert. As such, people are free to go about their business unobserved until such time as they stray beyond know boundaries.
On the other hand, general video surveillance indiscriminately observes the actions of people; irrespective of whether they stay within prescribed boundaries. Active surveillance, of this kind, tends to offend people who may feel that their integrity is assumed by the company to be open to question. Telling people that they have nothing to fear if they are honest hardly answers the implied insult.
So, how should a company respond? What ought it to do?
Corporations also need to be wary of the fact that they are often judged to act with an unrestricted concern for their own interests. This may be a judgement that is false, harsh and unfair. Yet, it is remarkable persistent. To the extent that it prevails, ordinary people are liable to be relatively unsympathetic when forming a view about the measures business might legitimately take to protect itself from crime.
For example, some people think shoplifting to be only a minor indiscretion. Why? Because of the widespread belief that business is rich and powerful enough to look after itself. In some respects, it is analogous to the attitude shown by people when looking for creative ways to minimise their tax. Put simply, for many people business (like the tax man) is taken to be 'fair game'. The fact that it is the community that ultimately pays in the form of higher prices is lost in the illusion that this type of theft merely strips out the fat in corporate profits.
How might one combat this attitude? One response would be to develop a reputation as a good corporate citizen and in doing so, attract the sympathy of the community. It stands to reason that a business that is known, trusted and liked will have greater latitude when arguing that case that it should be allowed to take effective measures to protect its interests. There is one other strategic benefit that flows from having a strong reputation as a good corporate citizen – the host community will be an inherently hostile environment for any criminal wishing to harm the company. It can be argued that this, in itself, will help to reduce crime against business.
So, being a good corporate citizen may have benefits for the bottom line. However, those who adopt such policies for this reason alone should beware. It's not just a matter of doing the right thing, the benefits only flow to those who act for the right reasons!
That is why the call for institutional reform is so important. It's not my view that everything needs to be turned upside down and inside out for the sake of change. We could examine current practice, ask some really serious and searching questions and conclude that things are pretty much as they should be. If we can reach this (improbably) conclusion in all good conscience, then so be it.
I believe that the benefits of change will not come to those who merely reform the bones of an organisation. Nor will they be the prize for those who are content to tinker with the head alone. There is also a need to consider the soul- and in doing so, allow a little room for brave dreams and a happy heart.
discuss this articleDr Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre.
This article was first published in City Ethics (now Living Ethics), issue 32, winter 1998
© St James Ethics Centre