03 Oct 2011
LAST WEEK Ed Miliband unveiled Labour's new policy thrust to reward good companies and penalize bad ones. The idea provoked generally negative business comment, much of it with a ‘hot air' theme.
As someone keen to promote responsible business, I'm inclined to pause before dismissing it as another short-lived Big Idea.
The two key questions it poses are: what distinguishes good from bad and what would these rewards/penalties be?
As for the first, the distinction is clearly broader than the simplistic "apprentices good, private equity bad" which came out of the speech. Some private equity firms can be good businesses, depending on what they do with the assets they buy.
Some companies that employ apprentices have been found to pay bribes to get business. In fact the party leader was quick to clarify that his speech contained examples (easy targets, given his audience) rather than a blueprint for policy.
So what is a ‘good' business? We would argue that responsibility is at the core of good business. A responsible business tries to be fair to its stakeholders as a whole, namely its own employees, its customers and suppliers, as well as taking care about the environment and the community where it operates.
A business needs to be successful commercially, and hence create value and jobs, while taking responsibility for all its actions wherever they are carried out. It should be transparent, honest and accountable.
The Milton Friedman days, when the social responsibility of a company was to make profits, are long gone, because the few who still think like that have been in hiding for the last three years.
The complexity and variety of what constitutes good would suggest that the rewards and incentives can't be a silver bullet, like a tax break, but rather a whole raft of measures.
Such as tax incentives for R&D and training carried out in the UK; fines for environmental damage which match the social cost; tougher regulation on mis-selling products and services; penalties for paying suppliers late; disqualification of companies from public contracts if they commit serious corporate offences.
Also on the agenda, dare I suggest, may be a regime where tax is paid in the UK if the company's value added is here, never mind if its HQ has been moved to Dublin or Zug. International tax advisers may be very content with the flexibility of the current tax environment. But Mr Miliband probably more than suspects that the public as a whole just doesn't get it.
Michael Littlechild is a director of responsible business advisors GoodCorporation
You may also like
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
Visitor comments Add your comment
Simplistic view of Friedman
"The Milton Friedman days, when the social responsibility of a company was to make profits, are long gone, because the few who still think like that have been in hiding for the last three years."
Nonsense. Implicit in the concept of profit-maximisation is "responsibility" towards stakeholders being taken seriously, not cheating employees/suppliers/customers etc., simply because such things have an impact on profitability at the reputational level. Most firms embrace CSR for this very reason. Plus, for some it's a very convenient bludgeon with which to strike at less well heeled firms that can't afford their lavish CSR agenda. A firm's sole moral imperative is sitll to maximise its owners' return on investment, without aggressing against the person or property of anyone. Beyond that, any other moral "Imperatives" are luxuries and mostly nonsense.
Posted by: Anthony, 04 Oct 2011 | 18:55
And no again!
"But Mr Miliband probably more than suspects that the public as a whole just doesn't get it."
He's best off being ignored anyway. As for taxing them based on where they contribute the most value... yes, very fair. Tax them where they contribute the most via high productivity. Of course, taxation is an endeavour to maximise a bunch of parasites' income as much as possible and has little to do with fairness. Companies need more, not less, competition in taxation.
Posted by: Nonono, 04 Oct 2011 | 18:58