In a comment article yesterday in Director Magazine, Jack Welch tried to help by clarifying where CSR should be prioritized during a downturn.

It makes depressing reading because here we have a business leader emeritus completely failing to understand what corporate social responsibility is.

CSR, according to Mr Welch, essentially comes down to "giving back" (what we used to simply call philanthropy) and to products that meet the demand for sustainable alternatives.

Such CSR, he continues, has to be toned down when the going gets tough.

My problem with his argument is twofold:

1/ CSR is first and foremost a management framework for enabling ethical decision making to take place within a short-term profit obsessed corporate culture. Mr Welch does not mention ethics once, nor does he indicate explicitly whether our ethics should take a back seat in tough times.

2/ Mr Welch's argument betrays the fundamental problem with the way that the bulk of the CSR industry chooses to present the case for doing the right thing (i.e. behaving ethically): that good companies reap financial rewards.  The flaw in relying on the profit motive as the driver for ensuring that your product range and manufacturing processes limit negative social and environmental impacts is clearly laid out by Mr Welch:

"When gas costs $4 per gallon, a hybrid Toyota Prius is an attractive value proposition. When gas is $2 per gallon, that's no longer the case. When most consumers have good jobs and feel secure in them, it makes sense to expect them to pay more for a product that's environmentally friendly. When bank accounts have been drained, that more expensive product is a very tough sell."

If corporate social responsibility has been robbed of any useful meaning, perhaps we should start encouraging business leaders like Mr Welch to give an opinion on their prioritization in times of crisis of, say, "ethics management" - a broad enough term to encompass the firm's approach to managing social and environmental impacts.

Mixing up CSR with good old philanthropy, public relations or product innovation and ignoring the ethical conduct of business is just shell gaming.

• 1 Comment

Just a thought: can an industry grouping that is beholden to high carbon energy and industrial businesses continue to speak for the climate concerned?

This December there are going to be intense negotiations for a new global climate change agreement. The lobbyist groups will be in top gear, but within those groups not all interests are the same.

The US Chamber of Commerce is advocating for a position that supports high carbon industries' licence to belch even in the face of climate chaos, but their membership includes many substantial businesses that are just as vehemently advocating for a strong Congressional commitment to climate change regulation.

Assuming it is not all duplicitous posturing, can the Chamber continue to speak for such a broad raft of American industry? Has it already picked a side? Is the carbon-at-will/carbon constraint divide so great and the issue so important that it could lead to a break up of the Chamber itself into the two camps? One fossil(ized), one new, perhaps embracing business responsibility?

• 0 Comments

Under pressure to bring to justice those bribed by agents of Halliburton subsidiary KBR, the Nigerian government has convened a panel.

The background to the case can be read here.

KBR and its former Chief Executive Albert Jack Stanley have pleaded guilty to offences related to bribing Nigerian officials in order to secure a contract to construct a liquified natural gas facility in the country. Nigeria has so far taken no action against those Nigerians who were bribed.

According to the Daily Independent report, the panel comprises:

"the heads of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), State Security Services (SSS), and the Inspector General of Police."

The panel will also probe cases involving Siemens and Willbross.

The Nigerian Bar Association has described the panel as a "cover-up".

Meanwhile, the Swiss have confirmed they will assist Nigeria in the recovery of $150 million of Halliburton bribes currently held in Swiss bank accounts.

According to an article in The Punch, however, the Swiss Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Micheline Clamy-Rey, stated:

"Nigeria only needs to take advantage of the opportunity of the Mutual Legal Assistance existing between both countries to request for the reparation of the funds.

...

She said, “Halliburton money of about $150m is blocked in Zurich, but the Mutual Legal Assistance existing between the two countries allows Nigeria to request, and we are ready to assist Nigeria.”"

So have members of the Nigerian government been careful not to ask?

An article in This Day article reports comments by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Chief Mike Aondoakaa, to the effect that:

"the money had been trapped in Zurich because it had been difficult to establish the operator of the account but warned that no government official found culpable would be speared. He however did not state categorically who found it difficult to ascertain the account's owner - whether the Nigerian government or officials of the unnamed bank."

None of which provides any confidence that the Nigerian government sees it as being in its interest to get to bring the Halliburton bribees to justice, or to bring the bribe money back into the public coffer instead of private Swiss accounts.

A Voice of America article includes interview remarks by a Nigerian professor of political science at the University of Abuja:

"Some reports attributed to the Nigerian media and NGOs said former Nigerian presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, Abdulsalami Abubakar and the late Sani Abacha are among those who accepted bribes.

Mohamed said while the names of the three former presidents have not been made known in Nigeria, nevertheless there have been speculations to that effect.

"Most people have shoved with the wave of a hand that once it involves Olusegun Obasanjo, there is nothing that is going to be done. The present government is a stooge of the former president," Mohamed said."

Mohamed adds his own voice to those who think the new Halliburton probe will do nothing but tackle a few of the small fish.

• 0 Comments