The top 5 CSR trends for 2013

For years now we have summed up the main events of the past year in our end-of-the-year post. Before we are too far into the New Year we thought we should also ratchet up the game a little by sharing our two cents on what the future might hold in store for the world of CSR. In doing so we are partly inspired, partly informed by other players in the CSR world, such as ethical corporation magazine, BSR or just means, albeit our outlook is neither as gloomy nor as rosy as some of our colleague’s. Here is what we think business should watch out for in 2013 when it comes to CSR:

Trend 1: Governments are back!

One of the basic tenets of the CSR movement in business has been it being voluntary and meeting social expectations above and beyond the law. Well, that sounded good and no doubt many companies have done well in this regard. But after four years of ongoing (and new) financial crises all over the world and some of the more recent scandals it is also fair to say that business has enjoyed a rather long leash over the last decades, thanks to deregulation and globalisation. The fallout of the tax evasion scandal in the UK or the BP disaster in the US however have shown that governments are no longer all that happy to just take ethical business behaviour on trust alone. It’s no longer just carrots – the sticks are back out. After four years of virtually no prosecution of any Wall Street bankers responsible for the financial crisis, Obama has just appointed a former star prosecutor as the head of the SEC – for many a sign of a more ambitious control of Wall Street. And it is not just in the US where a second term president can now (hopefully) govern without too much concern for special interests. At this week’s Davos meetings UK Prime Minister David Cameron – the self declared most ‘pro business leader’ you could find – announced more coordinated efforts within the G8 to clamp down on the blatant tax evasion we have witnessed in the past.

What does this mean for CSR? In some ways it is good news for those companies who are serious about their CSR. After all, if ethical behaviour is just voluntary, the more responsible ones face those ‘first mover disadvantages of CSR’: if you are the only one that does not bribe, that does pay taxes or decent wages in Africa – your competitors will get the contracts, lower their costs and outcompete you. Companies therefore in some ways have an interest in levelling the playing field through regulation. The smart ones have understood this and rather than lobbying against it understand that they can be part of the solution. An example for a promising initiative in this context is the ‘Council of Clean Capitalism’ set up by the Canadian CSR magazine Corporate Knights which brings businesses together in creating a broader regulatory system that incentivizes responsible behaviour at a systemic level.

Trend 2: Make-or-Break on Climate Change!

Cancun, Copenhagen, Durban, Doha – the spate of UN Climate Change Conferences aimed at finding a successor of the Kyoto Protocol have so far led to nothing and are considered by many as a sick joke. Much of it to the ‘credit’ of business hampering and obstructing progress in many ways, as a recent study exemplifies. This said though, it does not mean that Climate Change is off the agenda for business. On the opposite, in accordance with Trend 1 above, we see that many national (i.e. Australia), regional (i.e. California) or even municipal (i.e. the C40) jurisdictions are moving on the topic with, yes, regulatory systems, be it cap-and-trade, carbon tax or other approaches.

For business this is not necessarily the best outcome. While global agreements provide a long term framework for adapting to the issue business now is confronted with a patchwork of approaches, systems and jurisdictions. With considerable regulatory activism in the area this enhances uncertainty and risk. This will be exacerbated by the fact that events like Hurricane Sandy (causing even Mike Bloomberg to acknowledge climate change as real!) make the effects of climate change more palpable. This area of CSR is just going to be a major issue on the 2013 agenda.

Trend 3: Beware of CSR Fatigue!

In a recent book just published some of our colleagues talk about ‘The end of CSR’. While we are not buying this line totally, it cannot be overlooked that CSR fatigue is spreading far and wide. Not only has CSR been totally ‘incorporated’ and has become a mainstream practice for most large businesses, it has also not prevented the scandals we had the opportunity of talking about. After all, most of the culprits in those incidents, including the major banks at the heart of the financial crisis, all have very much to tell us on their websites about the wonderful things they are doing in the CSR, sustainability or corporate citizenship area.

One trend then we can observe and which will continue to shape CSR practices is a move towards the core value creation of business. This may not be as comprehensive as Unilever’s ‘Sustainable Living Plan’ but it will certainly shape CSR instruments. The latest ‘G4’ revision of the reporting guidelines by the GRI, for instance, will move CSR related reporting away from being a separate ‘side show’ to becoming an integrated part of the financial reporting of companies. This trend will also be exacerbated from the regulatory side (see Trend 1 above): the SEC has recently adopted a rule to disclose the use ofconflict minerals for companies, which given the track record of this type of SEC rulings, will have significant impacts on the way companies implement responsible supply chain practices. While we don’t necessarily expect an avalanche of regulation here the trend is likely to become stronger in 2013.

Trend 4: The Action is Moving South!

In the 2013 ranking of Global 100 Most Sustainable Companies in the World, launched in Davos this week, the number two is the Brazilian Natura Cosmeticos. And they are just one of five Brazilian companies who made it into the top 100. For us this is indicative of a trend. The so-called ‘developing’ world is no longer  just an awkward backwater whose role in the CSR arena was at best to cause many companies in the Global North to clean up their supply chains. It is increasingly where the action is. Entire new areas of CSR, such as social innovation or social entrepreneurship have been initiated from the Global South. Think only of Mohammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank, which can be seen as a symbol of this movement. But we also see it at other levels. Indian and Chinese governments have long moved into initiatives to regulate and incentivize CSR for their companies. And we have also seen in 2012 that the story of Chinese multinationals moving into Africa as the new robber barons is likely not to go on forever: Chinese companies are facing exactly what Western companies were exposed to some years ago – with the Chinese government issuing the first Guidance for Social Responsibility for Chinese companies abroad in 2012.

Trend 5: Watch Social Media!

OK, somehow social media has come of age a little and we would be the last to pull that rabbit out of the hat in 2013 and sell it as the hottest new thing in town. In some quarters the cacophonic ubiquity of social media has led to its self defeat to the degree that some have even lamented in the past year its ineffectiveness in drawing attention to corporate scandals such as Apple in China.

The biggest change then is not the that social media is used in the CSR context, but that as a tool it has now passed the ‘hump’ on the adoption curve: it is no longer just for youngsters; rather 57% of those 50 to 64 years of age and even 38% of those over 65 are now engaged on at least one social network. From a CSR perspective this means that no longer a little blog or discussion forum to engage with the usual suspects of young activists, journalists or students is the future. Rather, the main channels of engagement and communication for business are changing. We talked about CSR fatigue above, and it is here where we will see the most significant changes in the way companies communicate. It is moving ‘from stats to stories’. Rather than putting out the annual alibi report document, social media amplifies the communication of real life impacts, of how people are affected, the need for discussion rather than one-way information, and the absolute imperative of time. CSR communication is not just putting out a report once a year, but it is about informing on a regular basis, close to events, with responses and updates in real time. The good news then is that social media will be less linked to activism or campaigns – but beware: the thirst for information facilitated by social media asks for more ongoing and regular engagement in CSR and will expose business to a much more direct and visible scrutiny by the general public.

Image by ND Strupler, reproduced under the Creative Commons License

Should the UN Global Compact have sharper teeth?

Do those teeth need sharpening? Georg Kell, Executive Director of the UN Global Compact. 

The emergence of multi-stakeholder initiatives and voluntary corporate accountability programs for business have become some of the most interesting aspects of the CSR debate over the past decade or so. The largest of these in terms of company participation is the UN Global Compact, which now has some 10,000 participants, including over 7,000 businesses in 145 countries. By any account, that's a huge number. It's also a huge experiment given that there's never been anything quite like it before or since.

A few years ago we were the official bloggers of the Global Compact's 10 year anniversary, "Leaders Summit" which took place in New York in 2010. At that time we made various comments on the successes, failures and future challenges of the compact. As geeky academics, we are now eagerly awaiting the publication of the special issue of the journal Business & Society (which we are on the board of), entitled "The UN Global Compact: Retrospect and Prospect", edited by our friends and colleagues Andreas Rasche, Sandra Waddock and Malcolm McIntosh. They've put together a nice collection of academic papers on the subject, including a terrific introduction from the editors, and the special issue really demonstrates how seriously the academic community is taking the Global Compact.

Some of the big questions for researchers interested in the Compact - and indeed for many in the practitioner community - are about its governance and effectiveness. Does membership have an effect of corporate social performance? What governance system would be most effective to ensure corporate accountability? And perhaps the biggest question of them all - should the compact, as its critics maintain, have more regulatory power to discipline companies that don't live up to its principles, or is it more important to have a low bar for participation so as to engage the maximum amount of companies?

Answers to these questions are slowly beginning to emerge from the research community. Over at the aptly named Global Compact Critics website, a colleague of ours at the University of Zurich, Patrick Haack, has written a guest blog based on his research that reaches a conclusion which the compact critics love to hate. Yes, you guessed it, Haack recommends that rather than kicking out any "bad apples" in the compact, the UN should keep them in. Paradoxically, this is the way to build legitimacy according to Haack: “a “soft” and consensual approach is in the best interest of the Global Compact and transnational governance more generally... "keeping bad apples” and providing them with time and resources to overcome organizational barriers may prove more fruitful than unconditional punishment."

Provocative stuff. Unsurprisingly, the critics have hit back - in the form of a post from Mariëtte van Huijstee from SOMO, the organization behind the Global Compact Critics website. "By keeping bad apples in at all times," she argues, "the initiative loses its legitimacy and appeal for other companies in the long run." This is no arcane academic argument; it goes to the heart of how to build an effective mechanism for corporate accountability and ensure that companies act in the best interests of society.  But the answers are not obvious and the need for good research is critical.Some of what has emerged so far has shown that the diffusion of the Compact has been dampened by the effect of critical NGOs who have voiced concerned over its "weak" inclusive approach - meaning that companies from countries with strong networks of international NGOs have been less likely to sign up than those from countries outside of these networks. This helps to explain why the Compact has been particularly successful at getting traction in developing countries, even whilst developed country NGO criticize its lack of teeth.

So the debate will no doubt rage on. But soon, we hope, we'll have the research to show what the real advantages and disadvantages are of the Compact - and whether its weakness is, as Haack contests, one of its main strengths.

Photo by djevents. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Top 10 Corporate Responsibility Stories of 2012

This year may have lacked the huge catastrophes that have dominated the corporate responsibility headlines of the last couple of years (such as BP's oil spill in 2010 or TEPCO's nuclear disaster at Fukushima in 2011), but 2012 has probably been more packed with serious incidents than any of the previous years. We had real trouble putting these in any kind of order and even getting down to just a top 10 of big stories was tough  - and meant we had to jettison a few favoured good news stories about corporate responsibility just to be able to capture all of the bad news. So it nearly became the Top 15 Corporate Irresponsibility Stories of 2012. But in keeping with tradition, here's our view of the top 10 of the highlights and lowlights of a jam-packed year of corporate responsibility stories. And if you think we've got it wrong, or want to change up the order a bit, do add your comments below.

1. Apple's supply chain odyssey
If there is one thing that seems to be guaranteed now, it's that the tech giants will be at the forefront of the corporate responsibility agenda for the forseeable future. If nothing else, it's simply a function of their size, power and ubiquity. In 2010 we had Google facing human rights issues in China; last year was Facebook's privacy battles. And this year, Apple's ongoing supply chain issues really exploded into the public consciousness, thanks in part to the New York Times stories that kicked off the year. Worker suicides, factory fires, poor labour conditions - none of this was exactly new, but one way or another 2012 saw Apple take over from Nike (and tech take over apparel) as the poster child of inhumane supply chains. Apple reacted fast once the tide had turned, but for many it was too little, too late. Even their own internal audits provided evidence of widespread breaches of their policy. As the bad news rolled in, the company that so-often seemed immune to criticism started to show signs of serious reform. Instead of secrecy, it started moving towards greater transparency, joined the Fair Labor Association and initiated third party inspections, and now reports monthly on the working hours of over a million workers. In what may turn out to be the most significant move yet, the company has begun manufacturing some of its Macs not in China, but in the US.

2. The LIBOR scandal
2012 was a bad year for a finance sector that seems increasingly incapable of holding onto whatever public trust is left after the financial crisis and its aftermath. Whilst the US regulators' continued clampdown on insider trading gained yet more scalps, most prominently former McKinsey head Rajat Gupta, it was the arcane field of inter-bank lending rates that dominated the financial front pages. Most of us probably didn't even know what a LIBOR was until this year, but revelations of deliberate fixing of interest rates among major banks in Europe during the late 2000s means that we all now know more than we want to. First, the CEO of Barclays was forced to resign in the wake of investigations by UK regulators. Now, the Swiss bank UBS has agreed to pay $1.5bn in fines to the Swiss, UK, and US regulators for manipulation of interest rates that according to Britain’s Financial Service Authority, was so “routine and widespread” that “every LIBOR and EURIBOR submission, in currencies and tenors in which UBS traded during the relevant period, was at risk of having been improperly influenced to benefit derivatives trading positions.” Investigations continue, and it is clear that other banks and possibly brokerages will be drawn into the fray. Perhaps the major legacy of the scandal though will be the startling picture it has provided us of the "horribly rotten, comically stupid" alternate moral universe that traders inhabit.

3. HSBC's money laundering fine
If the LIBOR scandal wasn't enough, HSBC's record breaking $1.9bn settlement with US regulators for money laundering in Mexico really capped a year that demonstrated how readily financial services companies could deliberately flout the rule of law, and bypass their own control systems with impunity. The HSBC settlement followed similar (though smaller) money laundering settlements against foreign banks including ING and Credit Suisse. What was particularly remarkable with HSBC was the fact that despite having strong evidence the authorities elected not to indict the bank out of fears of possible financial collapse.  The message? Four years on from the financial meltdown, some financial institutions are still too big to fail ... but their licence to operate looks increasingly at risk.

4. Bangladesh factory fire
The death of 112 workers in the Tazreen fashions factory fire of November marked probably the saddest moment for corporate responsibility in 2012. It also provided a powerful reminder that the global apparel industry still had not got its house in order regarding working conditions in the product supply chain, despite two decades  of codes of conduct and factory audits. Tazreen was making clothes for global brands such as Wal-Mart and Sears, who remarkably did not even know that their products were being manufactured there. All in all, a devastating wake-up call for the world of supply chain monitoring.

5. Lonmin mine shootings
Described by the BBC as the bleakest moment faced by South Africa since the end of Apartheid, the shooting of 34 striking miners by police at the Lonmin Marikana platinum mine demonstrated the escalating difficulties of doing business in the global mining industry and in an increasingly fractious South Africa in particular. Lonmin tried to remain above the security crisis, which in total claimed some 44 lives, but a company that not so long ago had the highest CEO:average worker pay gap on the FT 100, operating in one of the most unequal countries on the planet was bound to breed resentment.  Unfortunately the more fundamental reform required to significantly ease the tensions at Marikana looks unlikely.

6. Wal-Mart's Mexican corruption scandal
Wal-Mart wasn't the only company put under the corruption microscope in 2012. Canadian engineering firm SNC Lavalin, among others, was another high profile casualty of increased vigilance among national prosecutors. But the Wal-Mart de Mexico story makes it into our top ten a) because it marked such a sudden reversal of fortune for the company after its much vaunted CSR makeover of the past few years; b) because retail, unlike construction, is rarely a site for major bribery.  Many of the facts are still to come out, but a devastating investigation by the New York Times points to Wal-Mart's Mexican business being a "an aggressive and creative corrupter", systematically using bribery to obtain store permits for its rapid expansion and subverting democratic processes and regulatory safeguards in the process. Critically, the company was also found to have deliberately hushed-up the problem to protect its burgeoning reputation, closing down an internal investigation in 2006, and failing to report any of the illicit payments to the authorities. Suddenly all those nice sustainability initiatives don't look quite so pretty.

7. The BBC's Newsnight sex abuse fiasco
With the fallout of the News International phone hacking scandal still very much a part of the UK media landscape, the last thing the sector needed was a scandal at the most trusted media organization of them all, the BBC. But when the 2011 decision to terminate a Newsnight investigation into sex abuse claims against the recently deceased, former BBC presenter Jimmy Saville came to light this year, it because clear that something was wrong at the redoubtable British media organization. It was left to a rival broadcaster to finally break a story that has since become probably the largest serial sex abuse case in UK history. The BBC then spiraled further into disaster when Newsnight broadcast sex abuse claims against an unnamed senior establishment figure that were very quickly discovered to be untrue. The Director General of the BBC resigned amid the panic and confusion whilst a subsequent report into the BBCs handling of the Saville investigation labelled the organization "incapable and chaotic" with a culture of distrust. It's better than "immoral and deceitful", but hardly a ringing endorsement of responsible management.

8. Starbucks' "voluntary" tax payment.
After bubbling away for a few years, 2012 was really the year that tax justice broke into the mainstream consciousness. Campaigners have targeted various companies over the years, but when the spotlight fell on Starbucks, along with Amazon and Google, for their failure to pay tax on millions of dollars of profits in the UK, activists, politicians and consumers called for change. Not that any one suggested that any of the companies had broken the law, merely that such aggressive tax avoidance didn't align with many people's conceptions of fair play. Starbucks' offer to make a "voluntary" payment of $30m to make up for the shortfall suggested that they could read the message in the coffee grinds about where the debate was headed - towards greater expectations placed on companies to be "good citizens". But clearly the onus is also on politicians to beef up the rules ... rather than just criticize companies who are able to take advantage of their shortcomings.

9.  The Super PAC election
The US election was one of the big news stories of the year, and one of the main corporate responsibility issues swirling around the election was about the role of corporate money in politics. This was the first US national election since the 2010 Citizens United legislation which effectively removed any cap on political donations by companies. No surprise then that the election was the most expensive in history with corporate money aggressively channelled to candidates through super PACs (political action committees). Even though this was expected to benefit former hedge fund boss Mitt Romney, Obama came out ahead, perhaps demonstrating that money can't always buy elections. But when even the Harvard Business Review blog starts carping on about getting corporate money out of politics, you know that a tipping point could be fast approaching.

10. BP oil spill aftershocks
Just because it was our no.1 story two years ago, that doesn't mean the BP oil spill isn't still telling us something new about corporate responsibility. This year, we saw the company slapped with a record $4.5bn fine from the US Justice Department after it admitted to criminal responsibility for the explosion that led to 11 deaths on the Deepwater Horizon well. The company could still face a bigger fine following a civil suit for the damages caused by environmental pollution. But maybe the most significant aftershock of the spill was the decision by the US Environmental Protection Agency to suspend BP from bidding for federal contracts over their "lack of business integrity". Although it's still unclear how long the suspension will last, this suggests a potentially significant shift in the government's strategy for dealing with irresponsible companies. Or maybe it just means that BP didn't get its lobbying strategy right!


Photo copyright meteo. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Four reasons why we're so hard on our leaders' ethical lapses

The list of prominent leaders being turfed out of office for ethics violations seems to be growing at an exponential rate. Here in Canada, Toronto mayor Rob Ford's ouster this week for breaking conflict of interest rules is no less than the third Canadian city major to bite the dust this month due to questions of integrity (the others, Gerald Tremblay of Montreal and Gilles Vaillancourt of Laval both resigned without admitting any guilt in face of corruption investigations).

 In the last month we've also seen the Director of the CIA in the US, David Patreus resign due to an admission of "extremely poor judgement" in conducting an extramarital affair. The same week, the incoming CEO of the multinational defense company Lockheed Martin resigned over "a close personal relationship" with a subordinate. Even Hurricane Sandy took its toll with the resignation of the CEO of the Long Island Power Authority after thousands of its customers were left without electricity. And over in the UK, the Director General of the BBC resigned this month due to the organization's botched child abuse investigations.

But its not just a sudden blip. Earlier in the year, Bob Diamond, the CEO of Barclays Bank, resigned in the wake of the Libor scandal, adding to a CEO head count that already included the CEO of Yahoo (falsified CV), Best Buy (inappropriate relationship with a subordinate), Nomura (insider trading), Restoration Hardware (relationship with a subordinate), Stryker (extramarital affair with subordinate), and Lotus cars (expenses irregularities). And just to stoke the fires even more, the former CEO of SNC Lavalin who resigned in March (corruption scandal), has just been arrested on fraud charges.

Depending on how you look at it, these various resignations, firings, and now arrests could be seen as a sign that leaders' ethical standards are tumbling fast .... or that our standards are tightening and that tolerance for any kind of ethical violations is shrinking. Regardless, it is always a big decision to terminate the boss, especially given the huge costs involved in terms of severance packages, the loss of valued experience, skills, and continuity - and in the context of public officials, the costs of going through another expensive election. To give a sense of what we're talking about here: Mayor Ford's removal may force a new by-election which will cost the city, and therefore Toronto taxpayers, some $7m. The termination of HP CEO Mark Hurd in 2010 for minor financial irregularities cost the firm a huge $37m pay-off, saw the share price tumble by 9%, and led to a period of significant decline for the firm after Hurd's successors failed to match his winning formula.

So why do we do it, especially when the "crimes" don't always seem to be that big: a fabricated qualification here, a few thousand in dodgy expenses there, a little bit of infidelity with a colleague when you should be home with the family. Are these really worth the trouble and expense of ousting the most important person in the organization? Here's four reasons why they might be.

1. Leaders are the chief ethics officers.
Leaders are ultimately responsible for the success or otherwise of their organizations. And that goes for ethics too. Leaders need to be the guardians of the organization's ethics. So if things go wrong, the logic goes, it is the leader that should be held accountable, regardless even of whether they knew what was going on further down their organization. And if its the leader who's actually breaking the rules, then they are putting their organization at risk ... of scandal, of fines, or of ethical culture problems further down the line.

2. Leaders set the tone.
You can't build an ethical culture if the boss breaks the rules with impunity. Many will argue that termination is too strong for relatively minor indiscretions, but they often overlook the knock-on effect of being seen to be too lenient. Employees throughout the organization can get the message that ethics isn't really taken too seriously and that although you may get your wrist slapped, the rewards in terms of bending the rules may outweigh the costs. Termination makes that risk-reward calculation crystal clear.

3. Leaders personify problems
Many ethics problems, especially when they break into the public domain, get associated with the organization's leader who becomes the public face of the scandal - and often the target of approbation. So any strategy for dealing with the problem has to tackle the issue of the leader. That's why organizations sometimes fire their leaders in the face of ethics scandals - its an attempt to demonstrate that the problem has been dealt with. The reality is rarely so simple, but the optics matter.

4. Leaders already have disproportionate power
Even minor indiscretions can gain a greater significance when its the boss who is involved. We all make mistakes from time to time, but when the leader crosses the ethical line, the stakes are immediately raised because he or she is already in a position of such power. Fiddling the expenses or having an affair with a subordinate are not just breaking the rules; when its the boss whose doing it, its an abuse of power - or even worse, its sending a message that leaders are above the rules that govern everyone else.

Of course, individual cases will also bring up unique reasons specific to that case, but the message here is simple. Terminating the leader may not make sense economically, and it may not even solve the problem ... but it still can make sense if you're looking to build a truly ethical organization.

Image by cali.org. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence.

Film Review 'The City Below'

Among the spate of movies inspired by the ongoing financial crisis, ‘The City Below’ (German: ‘Unter dir die Stadt’) is definitely one exceptional voice. While many of those – think ‘Too big to fail’ or ‘Margin Call’ - provide us with a tension filled account of the inner workings of events that led to the crash of banks and markets in 2008 this movie is anything but a thriller. Technically it is a romance, but it is essentially a portrait of the ‘sociotop’ which is the world of the ‘one percent’, the top echelons of a global bank in Germany’s banking capital Frankfurt.

As such the movie – rather than adding to feelings of anger, rage and disgust about greedy bankers – provides us, as it were, with a clinical diagnosis of the de-humanized, de-emotionalized and fake rational world which steers our contemporary version of capitalism. We enter a world actually devoid of glamour or anything to aspire to – and the film leaves us wondering whether the working life of the ‘one percent’ after all is, if anything, worth our pity rather than our envy. The synopsis of the plot runs like this:

A man and a woman at an art exhibition share a fleeting moment of attraction, which neither can act upon. Days later, a chance second meeting leads to an innocent coffee and the two strangers - both married - toy with their unexplainable fascination for each other. Svenja is curious and finds herself in a hotel room with Roland, but she does not consummate an affair. A powerful executive at the large bank where Svenja's husband works, Roland is used to getting what he wants. He manipulates the transfer of her husband to Indonesia to replace a recently murdered bank manager. Unaware of Roland's actions, Svenja now ceases to resist...

Watching the movie I could not help being reminded of Marx’s point in ‘Das Kapital’ where he differentiates between ‘dead labor’ (as in machines and assets) and ‘living labor’ (as in human workers). Marx made the point that capitalism ultimately results in the subjugation of living labor under dead labor, the ultimate de-humanization and alienation of 'human resources' (as we are called in today's business world)  through a rationale of maximal value extraction. In his fascinating book ‘Dead Men Working’, our colleague Peter Fleming argues based on studies of call centre workers and other low skilled labor jobs, that we increasingly witness an army of all but physically dead men and women roped into the relentless pursuit of productivity and efficiency. Mind you, in today’s movie, death is quite physically part of the business: Svenja’s husband Oliver only finds out after being transferred to run the bank’s operations in Indonesia that his predecessor there had actually been brutally butchered while doing his job. ‘Necrocapitalism’ – as as onother of our colleagues, Bobby Banerjee, has coined the current system of global capitalism – though is not just hitting the disenfranchised, under skilled and exploited working masses (such as those killed South African miners in their attempt to resist exploitation and abuse this summer). ‘The city below’ shows us the life of those at the top – the ‘dead men working’ in the power houses of capitalism - and how their capacity for true human interaction, emotion, and passion has been extinguished, channeled and crowed out.

What better backdrop for exposing this than the realm of romantic endeavors? When Svenja’s husband, as she puts it, is ‘annoyingly’ friendly to her she immediately knows there must be an agenda: she smells that he ‘invests’ some niceties into their relations for a ‘return’: her putting up with him relocating for two years to Indonesia. The grammar of their relationship is the one of business relations: they had some sort of contract, ‘a deal’ that they would stay for some time in Frankfurt and we witness Oliver’s skills - brilliant but utterly dismal for a lover – to re-negotiate.

Svenja’s affair with Roland (a board member at the bank where Oliver works) takes this even further. For Roland, who is used to being obeyed and not questioned, the ‘execution’ of his desire follows a strictly transactional pattern, hoping that his status and clout will open him the doors. Even after their first sexual encounters he occasionally lapses back into addressing Svenja in the third person – the polite German level of addressing business partners. Roland has lost any sense of a human, emotional touch: when they make love the first time Svenja has to remind him that she is not ‘made of glass’ – unlike the soulless, deceivingly transparent furniture of ‘dead capital’, which surrounds most of his living days. One time she asks him to extinguish their ritual post-coital cigarette on her arm. But this movie is not ‘Fight Club’, where at least the sensation of pain allows the heroes to feel human again in an otherwise commoditized and instrumentalized word. In 'The City Below' Roland just manages a hapless Freudian ‘Übersprungshandlung’ (Displacement Activity), he can all but inflict this pain on her purse. The movie is modeled on the biblical story of King David who sends the husband of his lover out to be killed in battle. But unlike the ancient romance, Roland and Svenja’s relationship goes nowhere – and even that is part of their negotiated arrangements.

Smoking, by the way, has an unmissably symbolic presence in this movie. Currently in most Western countries banned from all spaces of capitalist work, travel and relaxation as a pleasure ultimately leading to death, in the movie it becomes the great one thing where rules can be broken and intimacy is still possible. The affair between Roland and Svenja starts over the inadvertently shared cigarette in a museum. His first line ever to her is in fact ‘Smoking is forbidden here’, and arguably it is this moment when his passion is ignited. There is not a single of the love scenes in the film which is not – I am not sure what – clouded or mystified by cigarette smoke. In a world of those dead alive the forbidden is the sensual; and an arguably dangerous pleasure is the niche in where whatever is left of human passion and emotion can be fleetingly enjoyed.

Roland and Svenja’s affair shows that humans, of course, cannot totally survive in a world where every decision, every relation is governed by an instrumental, self-interest driven rationale for maximizing one’s own or the company’s returns and economic success. Roland carves out spaces where he tries to escape. Once a day his driver takes him to some dump where he watches Junkies injecting their drugs. In essence the affair with Svenja is a similar attempt, and towards her he tries to reconstruct himself as a human being by taking her to what he pretends to be his modest working class childhood home (which in fact is the home of the murdered employee). These are not just kinky distractions in the movie, these are common patterns among top executives. We should not be surprised, for instance,  that Ex-Goldman Sachs Boss and US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson for all his life has been an avid environmentalist and nature conservancy wonk in his free time – a contrast to his day job which could not be more gasping and irrational.

Having worked as a consultant for three month at Germany’s largest Bank in Frankfurt 13 years ago the entire movie struck a strange déjà vu for me. It's silent pace, the sterile, nearly theatrical acting of the main protagonists, the architecture and interior design, the language ridden with Anglicisms - all this resonates very well with my memories from that time. Despite unearthing a rather dire reality the movie is a very watchable, even humerous experience leading us into an otherwise hard to be experienced space – the world of global finance taking place far above ‘the city below’...

DM

The movie 'The City Below' plays at the GOETHE FILMS@TIFF Bell Lightbox in Toronto, October 30, 6.30pm