What is Fair Trade? (Part 3) (via Get Aktiv)

The third part in a series. I recommend you read all three. This is a different way to handle the issue, one that is sustainable and provides an actual human touch to capitalism.

The World Fair Trade Organization defines “Fair Trade” as –

“a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of marginalized producers and workers…”

James Pilant

[This is the final post in a 3 part series by guest contributor Natalie Armstrong, from Bachhara. Click here for Part 1 and Part 2] Fair trade organizations are not perfect, nor do they claim to be. There is still much work to be done and there always will be. It requires continual development and ongoing reassessment. The key however is that fair trade organizations show commitment to the preservation of these principles. Without a doubt, there … Read More

via Get Aktiv

CASE STUDY: Sankofa – Fairtrade and ethically sourced products (via Get Aktiv)

Is this the future? – Businesses not just devoted (or not devoted) to profit but to social change or just fairness? My good friend at Get Aktiv has a long, well written article going into considerable depth about a particular business. I would like you to read it. I am trying to work out in my mind how businesses are likely to change over the next twenty years. I think he is discussing a movement with great potential for changing the way we think about business and, in particular, corporations.

James Pilant

CASE STUDY: Sankofa - Fairtrade and ethically sourced products With ever-increasing awareness of global poverty and the appalling conditions many billions of people struggle through their entire lives, ethical and Fairtrade retailers seem to be burgeoning all over the place. We're usually happy to select a Fairtrade product over a non-Fairtrade alternative because we know it's going to guarantee fair r … Read More

via Get Aktiv

Did White Collar Crime And Fraud Trigger The Meltdown?

I’ll let the video speak for itself. But in my mind, the answer is a solid yes. It’s the cost of the pervasive lack of business ethics, a willingness to commit crimes in the pursuit of enormous amounts of money.

Corporations Have To Give Back!

From Patrick Dixon, the Futurist.

I think that one was a little short, so here is one of more size. I like what he has to say especially when he talks about passion and the individual.

The Growth Of CSR – Corporate Social Responsibility

Well, these statistics are encouraging but whether CSR is a form of green washing, PR or a simple waste of time and resources on the one hand or a promising corporate move toward some limited form of responsibility, I’ll leave up to you.

Salvatore Giunta Awarded Medal Of Honor

Salvatore Giunta is the only living recipient of the Medal of Honor from the gulf war conflict. There have been seven awards. All the others died during their heroic acts and never saw their awards.

This is definitely not Business Ethics. However, it is a matter of honor. Mr. Giunta displays a decision making that would seem idiotic to the beltway bloviators. He displays a patriotism that seldom figures into the business practices of “American” companies and the pseudo-citizens of our corporate board rooms.

I have been called shrill. What do you call it when one man is willing to lay down his life for his fellow man, while News Corp. (Fox News) waxes rich on software purchased from our nation’s enemy, North Korea? Are both patriots? Are both decisions reflective of honor? Are both decisions the result of a commitment to freedom and the security of the United States?

I’ll tell you the answer. Only one fits the criteria of patriot.

I’m proud to live in the same country with him.

James Pilant

The Real Costs Of Business Crime

Business crime is sometimes known as white collar crime. This is a term developed by the criminal justice theorist, Edwin Sutherland. I strongly disagree with it. While I can see its theoretical strength in terms of analysis, I think it allows people to put business crime in a different box with different rules. Business crime, white collar crime, is crime. A businessman that takes a life is no different than a murderer on the street who kills for a wallet. A businessman who steals from the government is no different from a bank robber. A businessman who behaves unethically has no right to think of himself as any better than all other poor sinners who have failed the moral test.

Who are the victims of “white collar” crime? Who are the ones damaged by corporate crime? It is simple and accurate to say that those that have lost money such as investors. We could add institutional losers like pension funds, even endowment funds at universities and colleges have been victimized. But that would be too short a list. What if we added those whose careers had been blighted by having worked at a firm like Enron that simply ceased to exist? Their losses would include losing their job, having damage to their professional reputation by having worked at such a place and we could add the loss of pension funds and stock sharing arrangements.

What if we stop thinking about it in terms of direct losses? This isn’t a bank robbery which might net as much as $6,000 dollars. In the case of Enron we are discussing stock losses in the range of $50 billion dollars(This is just the stock losses not all those other pesky losses, just the stock losses). Let’s put this in perspective. The operating budget of Arkansas, a state of 2,855,290 citizens, is 21.3 billion dollars (2008). Enron’s stock losses alone could have paid for more than two years of all Arkansas state expenditures.

Now that we have an idea about the amount of money, let’s discuss the ramifications of that amount of money. Let us assume a particular citizen makes $30K a year. That citizen loses his job. His lack of income is a loss to the community, his state, and nation. He does not produce value and because he earns no money he cannot make purchases or invest. His unemployment damages the country although in a small way.

Let’s take a giant multinational corporation earning billions of dollars a year (at least on paper) and take it out of circulation. Does this affect the corporation’s community, state and nation? Yes. However, when you remove such a large economic unit you have somewhat wider effects. Not only is the corporation destroyed but it usually takes out a number of its suppliers and customers, thus destroying a number of other companies. Its workers join the ranks of the unemployed. Its bill will not be payed causing serious economic problems for scores of individuals and companies.

This is a much larger effect than the individual worker we discussed earlier. But there is more. Such a huge economic loss has long term effects as well. Investment in that part of the country is damaged. That means less money for business startups, business expansion, innovation or opportunity. Many workers become unemployed. This means they take jobs that would have been available to others and while unemployed cost the state resources that could have been used for many other things. For those that lose their pensions and investments, it can mean a total change in expectation and life style. For the country at large, it causes a growth of cynicism and a lack of trust. It damages the ties that bind society together.

And there is more. How will you feel the pain? You might say that you owned no shares, you did not work for the company, and they didn’t owe you any money as a supplier or anything else. Therefore, you did not suffer.

But you would be wrong.

You lose opportunity. The jobs that you could have gotten, the money that you could have made, the places you could have traveled to, the highways and grants and educational benefits you could have gotten, they are not there. And because you don’t know what opportunities disappeared when the corporation closed down, you are under the erroneous idea that you were not damaged.

You were.

The billions and trillions of dollars taken out of this country by corporate collapses like Enron and Worldcom, by the use of derivatives and sub-prime lending are real money. When that money, that value disappears, so do many of the possibilities of what you could have been, what you could have done, and what kind of future your community, your state and your country could have had.

That’s the reality of white collar crime. All the regular crime, you can figure out the effects, the dead people, the economic costs, the lost opportunities. You can count the bodies.  But corporate crime, white collar crime, it destroys the connecting fabric between individuals and simply eradicates possibilities making the world a smaller and more hostile place.

Fox Parent Company News Corp Off Sources Software Development To North Korea!?

Fox Mobile owned by News Corp. owned by Rupert Murdock off sources software development to North Korea? Isn’t North Korea socialist? Wait a minute … they might be communist, oh …, they are communists. Wow, Do you think that someone should tell them that providing aid to the North Korean Communists might be a bad idea?

I just don’t get it. The parent company of Fox News cutting deals with a communist nation (and since they can’t do business directly using front companies to exchange the goodies.)

Apparently outsourcing is so important to profit we can overlook a few little problems.

This kind of support is one of the few ways that North Korea can raise money since it is under sanctions by the U.N. and specifically, the United States for its development of nuclear weapons. The North Koreans stand accused of several of the most successful cyber attacks in history and this kind of support bolsters their capability at cyber warfare.

Hey, don’t believe me. Listen to this guy.

“Any sort of transaction that gives cash to the North Korean government works against U.S. policy,” said James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based policy group. “The coding skills people would acquire in outsourcing activities could easily strengthen cyberwar cyber-espionage capabilities. Mobile devices are the new frontier of hacking.”

Well, on the other hand, we’re at peace with the North Koreans. Oh, wait a minute!  …  You tell me we don’t have a peace treaty with the North Koreans and are technically still at war. That can’t be good.

Does that mean that News Corp. is providing aid and support to a direct enemy of the United States?

Well, they’re not really a threat right now, I mean, aside from that nuclear weapon thing, right?

Will North Korea’s saber rattling lead to war? Thus reads the headline for May 25th of this year from McClatchy News Service. So, it would appear that they are actively considering direct war with the United States.

North Korea? Huh, I’ve heard something about them. Would that be the guys with the fourth largest standing army in the world? Would that be the ones we don’t have diplomatic relations with? Would that be the one led by a repressive dictator who has been described as being sadistic, paranoid, antisocial, narcissistic, schizoid, and schizotypal. Would that be a country led by the afore mentioned modest, retiring gentleman whose simple titles include
* Party Center of the WPK (1970’s)
* Vice-Chairman, WPK Central Committee (1972–80)
* Dear Leader (Chinaehan Jidoja) (Late 1970s-1994)
* Intelligent Leader (1973–84)
* Member, Presidum of the Supreme People’s Assembly of the DPRK
* Secretary of the Worker’s Party of Korea (1980–94)
* Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army (December 25, 1991-)
* Marshal of the DPRK (1993-)
* Chairman, National Defense Commission of North Korea (1993-)
* Great Leader (Widehan Yongdoja) (July 1994-)
* General Secretary, Workers Party of Korea (1997-)
* Supreme Leader of the Republic (2009-)

It’s possible that they are willing to tell us exactly what they think of this nation. Well, they are willing to. Their attitude toward the United States might be summed up nicely by this statement released by the North Korean Government

Pyongyang — Of late the U.S. Department of Defense formally announced that the U.S.-south Korea joint military maneuvers would be kicked off soon. These maneuvers are, to all intents and purposes, dangerous saber-rattling aimed at rounding off their preparations for joint military actions, pursuant to their scenario for a war of aggression against the DPRK and mounting a surprise preemptive attack on it.

The U.S. is contemplating staging a joint anti-submarine drill under the pretext of coping with the “intrusion” of DPRK’s submarines into the waters of the east and west seas of Korea. But lurking behind these moves are a design to invade the DPRK to put the whole of Korea under its control and a more important aim to establish military hegemony in Northeast Asia and pressurize and contain other big powers by force of arms in this region.

As Northeast Asia including the Korean Peninsula is of great military and strategic importance, the U.S. considers the peninsula, a gateway to the region, as its vantage point for carrying out its strategy of Asian aggression.

Cold War came to an end but the U.S. ambition to dominate the world remains unchanged. Its moves for a war of aggression have become evermore pronounced to carry out the strategy to put Asia and the Pacific under its control.

Asian countries will never remain an onlooker to the U.S. moves to hold military hegemony.

If enemies dare provoke a war, the army and people of the DPRK who have bolstered up the war deterrent in every way will wage an all-out struggle and demonstrate the mettle of Songun Korea.

The U.S. would be well advised to give up its foolish dream to control other countries and dominate the world by dint of its strong-arm military policy.

Let’s sum up. News Corp. owned by Rupert Murdoch, the company that runs Fox News sends money to North Korea to pay their software developers to make games for mobile phones. This is done through a number of intermediate companies so very, very technically, News Corp. can deny involvement. This money provides aid and support to a nation which has nuclear weapons for which is under sanction by the United Nations and United States. The nation of North Korea has been actively threatening war with this country and can be described with no exaggeration as an enemy of the United States.

This is the logical result of a corporate ethos devoted only to money. It doesn’t matter who you trade with as long as you make money. It does not matter if it can cost lives or threaten the strategic interests of the United States. It does not matter that the company expresses continued, constant support for capitalism and continuous contempt for policies to the left of that. As long as the question is one of money, there are no borders, there are no beliefs, there are no other considerations.

Do you like that? Is Milton Friedman laughing from his grave? After all, didn’t say that a corporation’s responsibility was solely to make the maximum profit for the shareholder within the rules of the game? This is all technically legal. Isn’t this exactly where that belief system leads?

So, the United States of America is a secondary consideration in the quest for profit. Maybe that should alarm you?

James Pilant

Andrew Comments On “Suggested-Rules-For-Corporate-Moral-Decision-Making.”

Andrew has once again offered his insights and, as usual, I am more than pleased to post them. I want you, gentle reader, to understand that if I get a post of more than two or three paragraphs (and it is thoughtful and on point), it is going to appear as a blog post. This blog isn’t just about me. If I didn’t think you were intelligent and perceptive, I wouldn’t write this thing.

Andrew is commenting on my blog entry, Suggested Rules for Corporate “Moral” decision making.

(I don’t post Andrew’s last name, his e-mail, etc. He has not directly given me permission and I am loath to volunteer such data.)

Here’s what he has to say –

Mr. Badaracco seems to put much stock into the idea that what is popular is best. 2 of the 3 steps in his quick process revolves around how others will perceive the decision. I think this is a shallow and intellectually hollow way of developing a system of ethics.

The “Golden Rule Test”, I think, warrants some merit, but it also has a flaw. Sometimes the best decision for a company will involve a negative impact to one or more individuals. If one utilizes this rule and thinks “what if I were the one being laid off or fired?”, then it could lead the CEO to make a decision that, while compassionate, is detrimental to the company as a whole.

I find the long method to be more intellectually and morally stable. Of course, its not perfect either. I agree that #1 is a good place to start, and that it alone is not sufficient. #2 is a fairly simple question in my mind. The rights of the people involved are usually determined by the overall society that the corporation resides in. This can, of course, vary from society to society. The value and character of the organization should be paramount. To preserve that, the leader must act in accordance with the organizations set of values. If he does this, then he needs not worry about how his character is perceived. The character of the organization is inevitably linked to the character of its leader.

Suggested Rules For Corporate “Moral” Decision Making

Badaracco is presenting a theory of ethics that I have seen in textbooks before. I’m not impressed. The first has got to be the shallowest possible interpretation of Utilitarianism as well as an equally inadequate exposition of the principle of rights. Then there is “what will people think.” My reputation is all. And we can’t live in a fantasyland. Wow, I betcha that Bible and the Western Civilization stuff got nailed there.

Of course, I guess you have to make it simple for the masses of the corporate relativists in the crowd.

Oh, well, read it for what’s it is worth –

The conference’s concluding keynote speaker, Joseph Badaracco, Professor of Business Ethics at Harvard Business School, presented the assembled CIOs a practical guide to making ethical decisions—not in case of right versus wrong, because that’s easy—but in right versus right, because that’s hard.

Badaracco suggested four ways to think about each decision:

1. Will it produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people? That’s a good place to start, Badaracco said, but it’s not sufficient.
2. What are the rights of the people involved? For example, if a Nobel Prize winner, on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer, needs your heart, having it cut out of your chest against your will would, ultimately, produce a great deal of good for a great number of people, but it would certainly violate your rights. Not to mention establishing a grisly precedent.
3. What will the decision say about your values, your character, and the values and character of your organization? Leaders need to represent the values they hold dear. However, simply focusing on how the decision reflects upon you can be short-sighted at best, priggish at worst. Finally,
4. What will work in the real world? Leaders cannot afford to live in fantasyland.

All these questions eventually need to be answered, and one can spend a long time thinking about them. But say you don’t have a lot of time? Badaracco offered a quick three-step process:

1. The newspaper test. How will you feel if your decision hit the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper?
2. The Golden Rule. How would you feel if someone else made the decision about you?
3. The obituary test. How would you like the people you respect to look back at your decision?