The (not so) Great Business Debate

I ought to know better, from my experience of social enterprise that when it comes to business, debates are never open and inclusive.

What the hell, I'm an athiest and I'll soon be going there. So I jump in with an article asking "What is the purpose of business"

I'm referred to the same question being asked by the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Nichols  

What's the difference? I'm speaking as a practitioner of business for social benefit which started 18 years ago with that very question. concluding:

It is only when wealth begins to concentrate in the hands of a relative few at the expense of billions of others who are denied even a small share of finite wealth that trouble starts and physical, human suffering begins. It does not have to be this way. Massive greed and consequent massive human misery and suffering do not have to be accepted as a givens, unavoidable, intractable, irresolvable. Just changing the way business is done, if only by a few companies, can change the flow of wealth, ease and eliminate poverty, and leave us all with something better to worry about. Basic human needs such as food and shelter are fundamental human rights; there are more than enough resources available to go around--if we can just figure out how to share. It cannot be "Me first, mine first"; rather, "Me, too" is more the order of the day.

That was the beginning of People-Centered Economic Development

The Catholic Church came up on my personal radar in 2009, when Pope Benedict with Caritas in Veritate, suggested an ethics which is people-centred in the context of our economy. but the words of a Catholic priest, really hit the mark.

In 2009 Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, the President of the United Nations General Assembly offered this in a speech:

“The anti-values of greed, individualism and exclusion should be replaced by solidarity, common good and inclusion. The objective of our economic and social activity should not be the limitless, endless, mindless accumulation of wealth in a profit-centred economy but rather a people-centred economy that guarantees human needs, human rights, and human security, as well as conserves life on earth. These should be universal values that underpin our ethical and moral responsibility.”

Pope Francis himself is an advocate

"Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”."

 

Talking of inclusion there was a conference in London a few months ago on Inclusive Capitalism. an exclusive gathering of the financial elite. The irony of this wasn't missed by fellow travellers in social enterprise. For me, the most significant inclusion was the hellbound Bill Clinton who'd received the paper I describe above 18 years ago.     

The Lod Mayor of the City of London was singing from my hymn book (if I had one) That's the main reason for exclusive conversations. When you're passing off somone elses work, you don't want them showing up at your expensive party. I wrote her an open letter, pointing out that you can;t build an ethical economy through dishonest practice,  Others had died doing what she was building her own reputation on. 

It was this kind of exclusion that led me to seek other outlets for sharing. Ironically McKinsey provided the vehicle with their Mixmarket initiative  and I wrote about taking the bottom line of business beyond profit maximisation, quoting from works including a blueprint for economic development in Ukraine.     

Today the topic is owned by the Chief Executive of Barclays.  whose commitment includes access for disable customers. Good to know their money is as good as anyone elses.  

That brings me to the matter of disabled chidren which became the central focus of our work and the 'Marshall Plan' for Ukraine. Torez, the location on which our 'Death Camps, For Children' articles had focussed has more recently become associated with the bodies of MH17 victims.

For mafia, this had become profitable: 

Children are left in conditions of neglect and medical ignorance, without benefit of even the most basic modern medical interventions that could reduce their suffering and give them a life reflecting human compassion that the vast majority of Ukrainian citizens want for all of Ukraine’s children, in my experience. Whether these kids live or die is of little, if any, concern to mafia. Many kids die from sheer human neglect. Staffers cannot possibly provide the level of nurture needed, because there’s not enough staff. There’s not enough staff because taking care of kids isn’t even the point. The main function is extraction of money from state and regional budgets. Regardless of how and why this came about, whether or not this arrangement was intentional from the start or emerged out of Ukraine’s twisted, tragic modern history, that is what is going on.

"Who van we send, Who will go for us" The words should be familiar to a cleric if not a banker.

The founding practitioner of people-centered economics didn't need to be asked, he lost his life going where bankers and clerics would fear to tread.

The best thing the Catholic Church could do in helping business serve society would be to excommunicate Tony Blair. What a signal this would send to the US taxpayers whose grants support his foundations. To the oligarch donors who would allow children in their own country to starve.