So, what then is ‘Socialism’?

Among the things one can’t avoid noticing after living in North America for more than two years is the bizarre use of the ‘S-word’. It recently keeps popping up in the context of health care reform in the US but it also rears its allegedly ugly head in many other contexts.

Since the 1960s, most notably promoted by Ronald Reagan, the term ‘socialized medicine’ has been used as a scarecrow to denunciate any other approaches to healthcare than the private system the US has had in most places. Other systems, such as the Canadian or the British or the French, by being branded ‘socialist’ gave people the impression – as comedian Bill Maher put it recently – that ‘Stalin himself would stop by to use his iron fist for your prostrate exam’… And the campaign proved to be successful.

It is interesting to see how people in North America find it difficult to imagine that any other system of capitalism than theirs is necessarily ‘socialist’ or even ‘communist’. Some in the US even fear that Obama’s approach to saving the banking system or rescuing the car industry is a direct way to socialism.

We won’t get into the details of the differentiations – it’s after all the 101 of political philosophy. It is however a good time to bring this to our attention. After 30 years of what often has been derogatorily been dubbed ‘neo-liberalism’ or the ‘Washington Consensus’ we see now a shift in economic policies. In many countries of the globe governments – some more reluctant than others – have assumed a role which assigns business a wider role and responsibility in society than the one to shareholders only. And more broader yet, the US seems to be leading reforms of social and economic life which point to a more inclusive and socially balanced form of capitalism.

Countries such as Sweden or France – often called ‘socialist’ on this side of the Atlantic – are capitalist countries with all the trimmings: private property of the means of production, markets, and the rule of law. However, they have built in some mechanisms that cater for the whole of society (such as a healthcare system for all) and ways of redistributing some of the income of the top earners in society for the benefit of the more disadvantaged.

These differences are not rocket science. It has been studied by a whole school of academic thought, among them the ‘Varieties of Capitalism’ approach, or the ‘National Business Systems’ school of thought. The more surprising it is that even respected scholars in North America fall in the trap of using this simplistic view on the S-word – as a recent debate about the Canadian health care system on the email listserver of the ‘International Association of Business and Society’ (IABS) shows.

It’s time to get rid of old stereotypes. Let the debate begin!

BP and alternative energy

There was a nice feature article in the Financial Times earlier this week on BP's retreat from its alternative energy business. Headlined 'Back to Petroleum' it argued that since the departure of former chief executive Lord Browne, the new BP leadership had brought about a greater attention to core business in oil and gas .... and that this had meant the "BP Alternative Energy" business unit was being scaled back. Noting the early retirement of the quasi-independent unit's chief exec, the closing of its off-site office, and cut backs on funding, the paper remarked that having led the charge towards alternatives, "BP is now leading the retreat".

To be honest, even under Browne, BP had hardly been gung-ho in its commitment to alternatives. Even with year on year increases over the past few years, by 2008 the company was diverting just 1.3 per cent of its 2008 capital expenditure on solar energy, 2.6 per cent on wind, and a full 93 per cent towards oil and gas extraction (see the handy BP presentation on the Greenpeace website). Hardly a signal of a change of direction. It's no surprise that many of questioned whether the iconic 'Beyond Petroleum' rebranding was simply that - a change in advertising and logo that did little to alter the fundamental substance of the company.

Certainly under Browne, though, the momentum towards renewables, however small in relation to the core business of BP, was unmistakable. It wasn't all just empty rhetoric. The company quickly turned itself into a recognized leader among the big oil companies for its attention to sustainability issues - not that it faced much competition. The strategy, a common one in the CSR toolkit, was to stay just enough in front of the competition to be a leader, but not so much as to risk changing the game and threatening the underlying cost and revenue structure.

Under current CEO Tony Haywood, BP is clearly employing a back to basics approach. There's a lot of sense in some of this - not least in the greater attention being focused now on core health and safety issues aroung exploration and refining. The last thing the company needed was another Texas-style 'preventable accident'. But in stalling investment in the renewables business (not to mention new investments in the Albertan oil sands), Haywood is clearly serious about sticking to the core oil and gas business for the time being and waiting and seeing on alternatives until a clearer message (and more subsidies) come from governments.

We're not sure anyone should be too surprised by BP's reversal given some of the clear messaging that Haywood has given since taking over - such as describing the company as having “too many people that were working to save the world”, and a determined commitment to cut costs in the face of falling oil prices. Perhaps also, we're simply looking in the wrong place if we expect oil companies to be the engines of a low carbon economy of the future. As the FT hints, succeeding in the renewables business requires a very different set of organizational capabilities than in the oil and gas business. Old economy thinking is not likely to equate to a new economy mindset. The future of the energy business is more likely to be found in innovative new business start-ups than among the collossal energy giants of today. Although once the young tigers have proved their worth, it'll be the companies rich from oil revenues that'll be looking to buy them up.

Photo by Mancio7B9. Reproduced under Creative Commons license.

A major day in business ethics

June 29, 2009, might go into the annals as a big day in the history of business ethics. Right on top of many US news sites, we learn, first, that Bernie Madoff got his whopping 150 years sentence and, second, the US supreme court ruled in a landmark case in favor of 18 white firefighters who were suing their employer for what is often called ‘reverse discrimination’.

The Madoff case is in some ways your run-of-the-mill textbook case for unethical behavior in business – if it were not on such a biblical scale and in these dire times. And for a change not only hitting poor or middle class people but the wealthy. For us this example of fraud and theft points to the clear limits and boundaries of business ethics: the strong approach to deregulation and self-regulation of the financial industry in the US (and elsewhere) in the past has delegated a lot of ethical issues into the realm of the voluntary.
Funnily, they interviewed Harry Markopolos, a stockbroker, recently on 60 Minutes who as early as in the year 2000 had filed a complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the self-regulatory body overseeing Wall Street. Four more he filed over the years, mostly because he was mad at Madoff as a competitor who offered these fairy tale returns. Remember, this was the time of Enron etc, where one would have expected the SEC to take complaints about unethical behavior seriously. Based on mathematical modeling Markopolos ("It took me five minutes to know that it was a fraud. It took me another almost four hours of mathematical modeling to prove that it was a fraud.") could prove back then what the SEC never took serious. Madoff was just too respected and too powerful on Wall Street for the SEC to even daring to question his practices. It shows that ethical behavior in business still is very dependent on strong institutions, independent regulators and, no less, skilled and professional oversight. The ‘Case Madoff’ in that sense is in fact a ‘Case SEC’.

The second incident is equally important and will have massive consequences. The case is about the fire department of New Haven (a small town north of New York City) which had made their firefighters pass a test as the basis of promotion. None of the black firefighters passed the test. Out of fear to appear racist, the City of New Haven then refrained from promoting all the (white) guys who did pass. These 18 white guys (one of them Hispanic) went to court and now finally won fighting their case through all the levels.
For a long time, the business ethics literature has actually addressed these issues of retributive justice in rather favorable terms. Because of past injustices against a particular group, that group should now receive preferred treatment. The black guys, so the argument goes, did not fail the test for reasons in their control, but because they belong to an ethnic group, which in the US still struggles in education, family stability and other factors which make people successful. The problem here is though that in doing so, you discriminate against other groups in a similar way. The fact that a court now rules against this in some ways is a sea change in the way we will deal with affirmative action in years to come. The ruling will have massive implication for business too, as it is based on laws that apply not only to the public sector. It will surely lead to many complex discussions and tricky decisions in business.

Ethics in the fashion industry

Most of the stuff that gets written about ethics in the fashion industry tends to focus either on fur, or on its effects on consumers, and especially the damage it can do to the self-esteem and body image of young girls. Those who work in the industry tend to get pretty ignored by the ethics community. Outside of the well-publicised supermodel tantrum, or the occasional rumour of drug taking, the working lives of models are essentially off-stage and out of sight. Most of us probably assume that the fantastic clothes, the famous faces, the glamorous locations, and the stratospheric salaries make modelling one of the best jobs in the world.

However, the release of the documentary Picture Me, which is just hitting the festival circuit now, looks set to lift the lid on the darker side of the modelling world. Made by Sarah Ziff, a model turned documentary maker, and co-director Ole Schell, the film chronicles the high pressure, exploitative, and sometimes abusive environment faced by professional models. It also, perhaps more controversially, provides us with a glimpse into the highly sexualized, predatory pressures that models experience, even as young teenagers. The film is already getting noticed, probably because its maker is already a familiar face in the fashion industry. The UK's Observer newspaper ran a feature on it a couple of weeks ago which ended up on the cover of their magazine. The doc also won best film and best fashion film at the Milan International Film festival recently.

Ziff is clearly a true industry insider, having been discovered on the street by a photographer when she was 14, and then going on to become the face of numerous global brands such as Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Dolce & Gabbana and Gap. In her time, she has worked for all the top designers including Marc Jacobs, Stella McCartney, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Chanel. Along the way, she obviously made a huge amount of money. But these experiences also provided her with extraordinary access to life behind the scenes of the fashion industry.... and an opportunity to tell the story of what goes on backstage in all its warts and all glory. By putting cameras in the hands of the models themselves, she was also able to give voice to those who, as the film’s myspace page puts it, ‘are often seen, but rarely heard’. As such, the film presents a sincere and engaging look inside the working life of models, documenting both the rewards and sacrifices that young women have to make.

In addition to Ziff and her fellow models, the film also features appearances and in-depth interviews with noted photographers and designers. By stitching these various accounts together Ziff and Schell create a frank account of various ethical issues confronting the industry such as age, anorexia, working conditions … and of course the exorbitant salaries earned by top models. It also brings to light the surprising lack of regulation and protection governing the industry.

In fact, the film itself is part of a nascent attempt by some models to bring greater visibility and protection into modelling. As the Observer article mentions, a handful have started writing behind-the-scene blogs chronicling their daily lives in intimate detail. A successful 2007 campaign by two models, Victoria Keon-Cohen and Dunja Knezevic, also led to the opening up of the actor’s union Equity to catwalk and photographic models for the first time.

We're hoping the film makes it and gets a wider release - it certainly should do given some of the star power behind it, even if it was made on a shoestring budget. It's not so much that no one knew there was all kinds of dodgy stuff going on in the modelling industry. But by putting it up there on the screen in such an honest and intimate way, Ziff looks to be making a valuable contribution to the debate.

Ethics pledges: If it's good enough for Harvard....

A few weeks ago we wrote about the growing phenomenon of ethics pledges at business schools, and its likely impact on avoiding the kinds of ethical problems involved in the current financial crisis. Several people have now been pointing us to a recent article in the New York Times on an Ethics Oath instigated at Harvard Business School. As a voluntary, student-led initiative, this is pretty much in line with the vogue for pledges in the US that we discussed in the earlier posting. That it has happened at Harvard, however, appears to be news to the NYT, presumably because this is about as deep into the mainstream MBA establishment as you can get. The logic here being: if it's good enough for Harvard, it'll probably be good enough for any self-respecting business school.

Certainly the current financial problems have focused a few more minds on issues of ethics and responsibility. And as the NYT suggests, the new generation of MBA students tends to be interested in making a difference just as much as making a buck .... or at least some of them do. It is notable that despite the hoohaw about the Harvard Oath, less than a quarter of the graduating class actually signed it this year, so we are not exactly talking about a majority of students. Still, a sizeable minority represents something of a shift from a decade or so ago when these kinds of commitments would have been laughed out of the class at most big MBA schools. Ethics pledges like these may not be for everyone, ut they do signify how far things are changing ... and how far they still have to go before a serious commitment to management integrity goes mainstream.