Steve Ouma Akoth discuses the notion of corporate responsibility, introducing two notions of human dignity - individualistic and choice oriented vs. communal and substance oriented - that reflect two different world views. In discussing these views, he argues that the choice is for a thicker or broader notion of the moral self.
Corporate Responsibility or Citizenship has evolved in a time of increased economic and social globalization. As part of this evolution, the debate has moved beyond responsibilities and accountability [1] of the Corporate Citizens [2] to that of respective roles that the non-state actors can play in the governance of global and national societies. In building this understanding, attention has invariably been focused on how the concept and process has evolved from the paternalistic philanthropic [3] focus to the current talk of accountability.
It is apparent from the scholarly materials and information available in this area that most pundits more so those focusing on accountability of business enterprises, have looked at this issue from the perspective of the Western system of knowledge and its confrontation with neo-liberalism. This “singular focus” has thus missed a major thrust and leverage factor from other cultures and jurisdictions which would otherwise significantly influence the clarity of this discourse.
From the various view points [4], one must also note that there has been no significant challenge to the economic system within which the business enterprises which are being called to be more accountable operate. Milton Friedman laid down corporate law in the mid 20th Century when he said that business' only role was to make business, which has been ignored in this debate [5].
Jerry Mander & Edward Goldsmith have taken this debate further by exposing the spirit of Miltons argument by stating that:
“The essence of the capitalism system is the accumulation of capital, the making of profits in order to invest and to make still more profits. The first law of capitalism is; And the best way to accumulate capital is not to work hard but to get others to work hard for you. Private gains, not social needs, are the central rule for the capitalist system.”
As an erstwhile chairman of Castle Cooke put it: “We are in the business of making profit. We are not in business primarily to satisfy society. We are not going to satisfy society very long if we go out of business. So profits are the number one consideration.”[6]
This is why I think that any efforts to promote ethical business practices and encourage respect for and fulfillment of human rights, must question the framework of profit making. The response to this kind of mind set in my opinion can not simply be the business case or the legal frameworks which have been touted as the major contours and impetus for Corporate Accountability. In my opinion this is about what is good and what is bad. It is about ethics and morals.
Although ordinarily the debate on ethics and morals is seen as a fragile and delicate landmine, [7] this is where the Corporate Citizenship discourse can benefit from the African Context. Because at the very minimum, business has a moral obligation to ensure it does not undermine human dignity and progress. To this, African Context through both economic system and value system gives an unwavered response.
The Traditional African Economic System.
The African Economic system was widely anchored in the principles of economic democracy. The basic premise of this notion is to view economics as 'culture'. In other words, importance is given to the study of economic processes in relation to the social and cultural contexts in which they occur To strengthen this understanding Anthropologists [8] have decided to create a distinction between this economic system - which they have called the 'substantivist' economy - and the now dominant neo-liberal economic system which they refer to as the formalist [9] economy.
The 'substantivist' economic system is anchored in the principles of egalitarians. This school of thought is closely associated with Karl Polanyi who is remembered today as the originator of a 'substantivist' approach to economics, which emphasized the way economies are embedded in society and culture. This thinking appreciates the fact that economic systems have three interrelated aspects;
- Patterns of subsistence - the means by which environmental resources are converted for human use
- Systems of distribution - the means by which goods and services are made available to members of a particular group
- Patterns of consumption
Polanyi isolates four institutions as crucial to the economic and political order that had characterized most native economies : a balance of political power, the international gold standard,
a self-regulating market system, and the liberal state. The SRM (Self-Regulating Market) was "the fount and matrix of the system," the "innovation which gave rise to a specific civilization". [10]
Most African societies were organized in a system that Polanyi describes here as the SRM (Self-Regulating Market). Polanyi differentiated between economic systems in which there were markets and the "starkly utopian" SRM of the nineteenth century. Markets are places or networks in which goods are bought and sold; they are human interactions organized by price, quality, and quantity of traded goods and services. The SRM was a society-wide system of markets in which all inputs into the substantive processes of production and distribution were for sale and in which output was distributed solely in exchange for earnings from sales of inputs.
The SRM was a society-wide system of markets in which all inputs into the substantive processes of production and distribution were for sale and in which output was distributed [11] solely in exchange for earnings from sales of inputs. Society is vital to humans as social animals, and the SRM [12] was consistent with a sustainable society. This argument represents the character of most pre-colonial African economies.
There exists substantial evidence that organization of production and distribution in many societies had been accomplished through social relationships of kin or community obligations and counter obligations (reciprocity). The same system of relation with business enterprises can be found in the Agrarian and pastoralist [13] societies. This framework seems to be in great resonance to the modern concept of Corporate Citizenship. It implies that business can not survive unless it is in articulation with the societal values and operates in a conscientious manner to the expectation and aspirations of the society.
African Ethics for Business: Ubuntu
There is a very diverse set of ethical and customary frameworks throughout Africa. However, to illustrate how some of these concepts or terms may be applicable to business ethics and Corporate Citizenship, a deeper focus on the world view of most African societies would be useful.
This is very well represented in the philosophy of ubuntu which is based on the proverb “Umntu Ngumntu Ngabantu,” which can be translated as “a person is a person through other people” or “I am what I am because of you”. The following extract is from a book by Desmond Tutu called No tomorrow without forgiveness and it gives a good impression of ubuntu:
“Ubuntu is very difficult to render into a Western language. It speaks to the very essence of being human. When you want to give high praise to someone we say, 'Yu, u nobuntu', he or she has ubuntu. This means that they are generous, hospitable friendly, caring and compassionate. They share what they have. It also means that my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in theirs. We belong in a bundle of life. We say, 'a person is a person through other people' (in Xhosa Ubuntu Ungamntu ngabanye abantu and in Zulu Umuntu Ngumnutu ngabanye). I am human because I belong, I participate, I share. A person with ubunti is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good; for he or she has proper self-assurance that comes with knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed, or treated as if they were no less than who they are.” [14]
The term “Ubuntu” emphasizes that we all live and work in community [15]. Hence ubuntu can apply to the inside of a company and we could see company employees and management as a community, where one looks after the interest of others. Ubuntu also applies to a company as part of the broader community, where the company looks after other members of the community so that it can thrive. It is therefore apparent that ubuntu has important implications for corporate citizenship. Linking this with the economic system postulated above, essence of Ubuntu (humanity) cuts across Africa.
It is pertinent to take account of the African world view and culture in the context of governance of companies and the moral power that they imply. This high standards of morality are based on historical precedent. These are bolstered by the close kinship observed through totem or clan names and the extended family system [16]. This notion of co-existence with other people which is highly valued can inform the way we conceptualize and design the responses to Corporate Accountability and Responsibility today.
Two notions of human dignity
The outcome of the above discussion is two very different notions of self dignity: A classical libertarian understanding which (when pushed) reduces human dignity to individual free choice, and a broader, social (egalitarian as illustrated by the African cosmological context) perception of humanity which insists that human dignity involves more than free choice. Precisely what the latter means in any particular society is determined not merely by ideological theory (whether of Kant, John Stuart Mill or Karl Marx) but by values inherent to the historical and social context (with all the political, economic, cultural and religious dimensions) that influence any particular society at a given time. Within this context theories, doctrines and traditions (the theoretical apparatus we bring to a situation) usually need to be reshaped, reconceived and rewritten. As suggested in the introduction, the exercise of thinking through and developing the Social Responsibility standard must thus involve an intellectual and theoretical renewal which responds to the conflicts within the current economic system. The two notions of human dignity - individualistic and choice oriented vs. communal and substance oriented - reflect two different world views.
It is apparent that this African cosmological context presents a major tension that challenges and haunts liberal politics. These are challenges that confront all politic. Its is the tension between how to allow the maximization of individual freedom of choice while at the same time addressing the corporate responsibilities that are part of any social union. If individual [17] liberty is the primary value, then equality may have to be sacrificed. If equality is the primary value, there will be violations of liberty [18]. The quest must thus contribute to resolving this apparent contradiction [19] which resides at the heart of democratic-liberalism. An illustration using the African context affirmations of individual freedom alone constitutes a one-sided view of a fragmented tradition [20]. As such it provides a useful basis on which to address the political issues central to the required reconstruction. The concern is to balance individual and common values, rather than to propose a compromise within which neither is adequately addressed. [21] The goal is the establishment of a social theory and morality, which 'rests on a view of ourselves as co-members of a common world'. It involves a morality within which each individual is necessarily seen as 'one of us', requiring co-existence based on mutual respect and co-operation by a community of individuals who consciously locate themselves within their social context rather than seek (in a Kantain way) to abstract themselves out of it. The quest is for a thicker or broader notion of the moral self. [22]
* The Author is the Programmes Coordinatotor and Deputy Executive Director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission, Member of the Advisory Board of Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and a Student of Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Governance at University of South Africa Contact address Valley Arcade, Gitanga Road, P.O. Box 41079, 00100 Nairobi - GPO, Kenya Tel. 254-2-3874998/9, 38776065, 0733-629034, 0722-264497, Fax: 254-2-3874997E-mail: [email][email protected]
[1] The discourse of accountability implies obligation by the law and a framework that can be used to hold the actor to responsible for their actions.
[2] These are artificial persons created by the law.
[3] The history of involvement of Corporations in societal issues has an origin in welfare and charity work at that time not much linked to the strategic operations.
[4]Here we are only referring to the view points that have been taken on Corporate Accountability and Responsibility
[5]Jerry Mander & Edward Goldsmith, eds., The Case Against the Global Economy and For a Turn Toward the Local (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996); Ed., Kevin Danaher, 50 years is Enough: The Case Against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (Boston: South End Press, 1994).
[6] Chairman of Castle and Cooke of Dole Standards Fruits CO., interview in the documentary film Controlling interests, (San Francisco: California Newsreel, 1978).
[7] This is mainly due to relativity of the term.
[8] Classic economic anthropology has been concerned with the logic of exchange systems, with peasant economies, and with livelihood systems. An anthropological approach to economics will enable a critical analysis of some of the cultural biases in the 'universal' principles of mainstream economics, e.g. the concepts of work and leisure, poverty and wealth, gifts and commodities, and money and markets.
[9] This formal neoclassical theory cannot be used to explain economic activities in non-western societies
[10] Polanyi, Karl. 1944, 1957. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press by arrangement with Rinehart & Company, Inc.
[11] One must however note that the strongest and most long lasting criticism of The Great Transformation has been directed at the passages where he argues that reciprocative and redistributive forms of integration have been much more common in human history than self-regulating market systems.
[12] In his further works, Polanyi's argues that the SRM could not survive -- not because of the distributional consequences that play the major role in Marx's explanation of the inevitable collapse of capitalism -- but because the starkly utopian nature of the SRM gave rise to a spontaneous counter movement, even among those enjoying increased material prosperity.
[13] In pastoralist societies for instance the concept of “cattle complex” which implies the deep intrinsic values that are inherent in pastoralism , do explain how social responsibility and sustainable models of economies and social relations inform business.
[14] See the Introduction to Corporate Citizenship, UNISA, Centre for Corporate Citizenship.
[15] This is almost some spirituality of Collectiveness and Humility. This Perpetual optimism is due to strong belief in the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent superior being in the form of the creator of mankind.
[16] As a result, there is an inherent trust and belief in fairness of all human beings. This manifests itself in the predisposition towards universal brotherhood, even shared by African-Americans.
[17] The individual here refer to both natural and legal persons.
[18] Lebacqz, Six Theories of Justice, p 65.
[19] As I have mentioned in other discussions, I doubt if the ISO system has either the capacity or the willingness to confront this challenge. See Steve Ouma Akoth; Comments on the Guidance on Social submitted on 19th April 2006.
[20] Pinkard, Democratic Liberalism, pp. 51; 101f.
[21] Pinkard views Duncan Kennedy's classification of 'individualism' and 'altruism' as two competing theories and a fragmentation of liberalism. This concern is to transcend rather than choose or reduce the two into compromise. Pp. 100f
[22] Pinkard, DemocraticLiberalism, p, 15.
