Watch this video for a shot introduction to ethics, the history of ethical thought as it applies to management and other good things.
The Blog Moves On
8 years ago
"I think a lot of companies will be challenged, at least early on, with indeterminate situations where they just don't know" the origin of their supplies, said Mike Loch, head of Motorola Inc.'s supply-chain corporate responsibility program.
The reporting requirement, which had bipartisan backing in Congress, is an attempt to bring U.S. corporate pressure to bear on a bloody, 15-year conflict that foreign-policy critics say has received meager diplomatic and humanitarian attention from the West. Armed groups made roughly $185 million in 2008 from dealing in the four minerals named in the law, according to the Enough Project, a nonprofit group that lobbied for the requirement.
Large companies now routinely claim that they aren't in business just for the profits, that they're also intent on serving some larger social purpose. They trumpet their efforts to produce healthier foods or more fuel-efficient vehicles, conserve energy and other resources in their operations, or otherwise make the world a better place. Influential institutions like the Academy of Management and the United Nations, among many others, encourage companies to pursue such strategies.
It's not surprising that this idea has won over so many people—it's a very appealing proposition. You can have your cake and eat it too!
But it's an illusion, and a potentially dangerous one.
“How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” That’s the question CNBC’s Rick Santelli famously asked in 2009, in a rant widely credited with giving birth to the Tea Party movement.
It’s a sentiment that resonates not just in America but in much of the world. The tone differs from place to place — listening to a German official denounce deficits, my wife whispered, “We’ll all be handed whips as we leave, so we can flagellate ourselves.” But the message is the same: debt is evil, debtors must pay for their sins, and from now on we all must live within our means.
And that kind of moralizing is the reason we’re mired in a seemingly endless slump.
Demographers have often noted that most of the emerging world will stay young while the rich world ages. In 2020 the median age in India will be 28, compared with 38 in America, 45 in western Europe and 49 in Japan. But the dividend will be paid not just in the form of more favourable dependency ratios but also in a more entrepreneurial business culture. Young people are innately more inclined to overthrow the existing order than are their elders. This predisposition is being reinforced by two big changes in the emerging world. The first is the information-technology revolution. The Boston Consulting Group calculates that there are already about 610m internet users in the BRICI countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and Indonesia). BCG predicts that this number will nearly double by 2015. And in one respect many consumers in emerging markets are leapfrogging over their Western peers. They are much more likely to access the internet via mobile devices (which are ubiquitous in the emerging world) rather than PCs. That gives local entrepreneurs an advantage, says Rob Salkowitz, the author of “Young World Rising”. Whereas Western companies are hampered by legacy systems and legacy mindsets, they can build their companies around the coming technology.
The second is a pro-entrepreneurial revolution. Global institutions such as the World Bank and the World Economic Forum have helped to popularise entrepreneurialism. Mr Gopinath was encouraged to stick to his guns as an entrepreneur when the WEF elected him its youngest ever Young Leader. Several big companies have also encouraged the trend. Microsoft is helping local businesses and NGOs improve information-technology infrastructure. Goldman Sachs is spending $100m on female entrepreneurs, many of them in emerging markets.