Why Occupy Wall Street should occupy corporate leaders' minds

This weekend, the Occupy Wall Street protest will go global. Protests, marches and occupations are planned across the world, with almost a thousand events across every continent scheduled to go ahead on October 15th. Here in Toronto, the financial district around Bay Street is preparing for an occupation that has so far garnered more than 9000 followers on Facebook. In London, social media sites have registered more than 15000 followers for the planned occupation of the London Stock Exchange. Similar smaller scale events are in the offing from everywhere from Alaska to Auckland. Whatever the success of these protests, it is remarkable the speed at which a local event in New York which was hardly reported on two weeks ago, has now been turned into a global movement.

Although the range of issues and demands of the Occupy Wall Street campaign and its various international incarnations are many and diverse, they share a strong single point of focus. The financial sector is very much the villain here. This is in some contrast to the movement that the current events most parallel, the anti-globalization protests that took to the streets in late 1990s and early 2000s, exemplified best by the Battle in Seattle in 1999. At that time, although many of the issues were the same as those receiving attention now, the main point of focus was international finance and trade organizations such as the WTO and the IMF, and meetings of political leaders such as the G8 were major targets. Now, by occupying the financial centers of major cities, the focus is much tighter. The financial sector is public enemy no.1.

In many respects, this is not too surprising. Economies across much of the developed world have been in a constant state of crisis for the past three years. Austerity measures are biting hard. Unemployment is up. And a significant proportion of society feels excluded, exploited, and ready for an alternative. The financial sector is an obvious target because it is here that the systemic risks have been created, and it is here that so much of taxpayers money has ended up, shoring up institutions that are too big to fail. When these same organizations continue to post substantial profits, pay out huge bonuses and generally carry on as before, it is fairly predictable that they will become the focus of so much public ire.

Much of the initial response to Occupy Wall Street has been dismissive. The financial sector, which must be getting quite used to being the bad guy these days, has hardly raised a murmur in response. As of yet, we haven't seen a single press release on the events from major financial services organizations such as Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, or anyone else. Don't business leaders have anything to say about what's going on?  Don't they want to be part of the conversation? Or are they just so concerned that anything they say will just be ridiculed by the protesters, or simply set them up as even more of a fall guy, that they are fearful of trying to put their position across in public?

But big business, and big finance in particular, needs to take this seriously. Here's why.

First, because governments are looking to be responsive and populist, especially with elections around the corner in the US. That could mean tighter controls, less freedom and more regulation. As even Dominic Barton of McKinsey made clear in the Harvard Business Review earlier this year, "Business leaders face a choice: They can reform the system, or watch as the government exerts control ... there is growing concern that if the fundamental issues revealed in the crisis remain unaddressed and the system fails again, the social contract between the capitalist system and the citizenry may truly rupture, with unpredictable but severely damaging results." Better regulation might fix some of these problems, but knee-jerk regulation, borne of anti-corporate prejudice is not going to be the best fix for the capitalist system, and not necessarily the one that we need.

Second, because the protests create a great opportunity for collective action on the part of business. Problems of financial risk, executive pay and corporate lobbying aren't going to be fixed by individual company initiatives, or even by national government regulation. If one firm or one country reduces its attractiveness by, for example, controlling pay, then talent will likely migrate to more rewarding shores. If one company puts a limit on government influence, then the attention of policy makers will simply be taken up by its competitors. That's the savage logic of the global marketplace. The best recipe for meaningful change is collective action across an entire industry. Like a financial sector executive pay protocol. Or a banking industry code of practice on political influence. But to be effective these would need to include government and civil society participation and include effective monitoring and sanctions across borders. No one is pretending this wouldn't require a huge effort. But crises of trust, like the current protests, could be the context that is needed for collective action such as this to arise and prosper.

Third, because these protests clearly signal that for some proportion of the population, all the money, time and effort expended on CSR simply isn't working. And spending more isn't going to make a difference. These people are looking for a change in the system, in the rules that govern business and it's relationship with government.They're looking for more accountability, less political influence, and if their demands are for better corporate citizenship, they mean the kind of citizenship where you pay your fair share of taxes and don't just simply offshore when it suits you. This requires a very different approach to CSR than the one now predominant in the corporate sector. It means fixing attention on how to devise better rules, not how to behave better within the existing rules.

The challenge here, clearly, is a big one. Perhaps then it is no surprise that corporate leaders have been content so far to just cover their ears and hope it all blows over. But there are fundamental issues that need addressing at the heart of our model of global capitalism. Occupying Wall Street, Bay Street, or the City of London may not be any kind of solution, but that does not mean it should just be dismissed either. Business leaders would be foolish not to see this as an opportunity to create an improved system of capitalism that serves us all better.

Photo by david_shankbone. Reproduced under Creative Commons licence 

Ethics of executive pay limits

As discussed in our last blog, executive compensation is a hot ethical issue at the moment. There's been lots of talk about the ethics of excessive salaries, especially for the Wall Street 'fat cats' and the rogue's gallery of bosses who took home big bonuses whilst their firms went looking for government bailouts in the wake of the financial crisis.

But now we have a new ethical question: what about the solution proposed by Barack Obama this week? Should we applaud Obama's proposal to limit the compensation of all senior executives at any companies receiving 'exceptional' government loans to $500,000? Has Obama's executive 'paydar' hit ethical pay dirt?

The executive pay limit has certainly stirred a lot of debate. On the one side are those that view it as an appropriate response to protect the public interest given the amount of public money that is being pumped into failing companies. Many believe that government's have moral duty to ensure that the taxpayer's money does not simply disappear into the pockets of senior executives. On the other side are those that argue that the pay limit will burden already struggling firms with an inability to attract the best executive talent. As one analyst told Bloomberg Television "No one goes into Wall Street to save the world ... compensation is the motivating factor." These folks tend to think that governments shouldn't interfere in labour markets to 'fix' wages as this leads to unnecessary inefficiencies - and can harm the very industries that the government is seeking to rescue.

From an ethical point of view, and put rather crudely, this is largely a question of principles versus consequences. But given that we're off the page at the moment in terms of the usual 'rules of the game', this is pretty much an ethical free for all. No one really can say for sure what the rights or responsibilities are of governments in situations like this because we haven't got too many precedents to work it all out from. And who knows what the consequences will be when no one is very sure at the moment what's going to happen next anyway. These are uncertain times indeed. One thing we do know though is that if the big threat looming over all this is that Wall Street will lose it's best talent because the grass is, well ... greener elsewhere, then maybe we shouldn't really be all that concerned anyway. After all, executives that have no concern for the public interest, who think that paying themselves bonuses while their employees are being laid off is good management, and who pretty much launched us into the most devastating financial crisis of our times might not be exactly the kind of 'talent' we need right now.

But from our point of view, all this ethical to-ing and fro-ing is probably missing the bigger point anyway. The real issue here is not so much the rights or wrongs of the Obama proposal itself, but the bigger message it is sending about executive compensation and corporate governance. Read between the lines and what the US President is saying is this: 'the system isn't working right, so get your act together and fix it or we'll do it for you - and you won't much like the results if we do'. And it's not just in the US - according to the FT, European governments are beginning to float similar ideas too.

Now, it is unlikely that any of these governments will step further than paycaps in bailed out institutions - after all this is where they have a more direct stake. But the writing is on the wall that they will have their eyes on deeper governance reforms if firms continue to revel in what Obama calls 'shameful' compensation deals. Smart firms and industry bodies, not to mention the more forward thinking think tanks and reformers, should be taking this opportunity to get ahead of the curve and start crafting a new moral direction for corporate governance. The deeper questions about what kinds of success should exec comp be rewarding, and how should this be structured to achieve fair rewards for all stakeholders need to be back on the front burner - and quickly so. Time is of the essence before another dirty bomb gets launched into mangled mess of Wall Street.


Photo copyright David Paul Ohmer. Reproduced under Creative Commons license

‘Shameful’.

That was President Obama’s comment on this week's news that Wall Street Bankers had been paid a total of $18.4bn in bonuses for 2008. The very banks in fact that had just received a multibillion dollar bailout package from the government, i.e. the American taxpayer. The most blatant case being Merrill Lynch (annual loss 2008: $15.3bn) which paid bonuses earlier than normal in December, just before being taken over by Bank of America with expected new government funding of $20bn.

The news came on the day when we discussed the corruption perception index of Transparency International in class at Schulich. We had a nice discussion why it is that often poor countries range high on the list and one student suggested that in poorer countries bribes are just that much more seductive as people are relatively poorer, and therefore more tempted to take advantage of a situation. But its not just poverty: comparing Sweden and Italy – countries of similar wealth one could argue – it is interesting to see the difference of more than 4 points on the 10 point scale. Italy is a more collectivist culture, where family ties and long term relationships matter more than in individualistic and meritocratic countries.

From an ethical perspective the question really is: why is it so much more corrupt to succumb to the temptations of poverty or to give preferential treatment to friends and family (earning you a bad score on the TI index) than to do what has been standing practice in business now for decades: to reward managers according to the market performance of the assets under their fiduciary trust?

These practices raise eyebrows and produce anger (one has hardly seen Obama so agitated in 2 years on the campaign trail) now where these bonuses come directly out of the taxpayers’ pockets and happen in the face of utter failure of the rewarded managers. But in our view it just exacerbates the general issue: what exactly is the ethical justification for the explosion of executive compensation particularly in the Anglo-Saxon parts of the world? Being rewarded for success – fine. But more often than not, the link between stock prices and individual managers’ performance is more than tenuous.

This ‘height of irresponsibility’ (Obama) will ask for new rules for the game. Obama will hardly avoid addressing this problem of executive compensation. Certainly in the eyes of most Americans (and the rest of us, for that matter) there is something deeply questionable about these practices. Bank of America CEO Thain has resigned over the scandal. Whether he paid back his bonus though was not reported…