Home » Posts tagged 'responsible capitalism'
Tag Archives: responsible capitalism
Changing the narrative from “responsible capitalism” for the NHS
Nothing will last forever. For all the people who have spent the last few weeks attacking Andy Burnham or quoting misleading estimates of mortality rather than discussing the intricacies of patient safety, the discussion about the NHS within Labour will continue long after Andy has moved onto other things. The ethos of ‘responsible capitalism’ took root in Ed Miliband’s famous conference speech, and since then there have been countless examples in the corporate world to underline its importance. If the Health and Social Care Act (2012) did nothing for patient safety as a statutory instrument, though perhaps providing greater clarity on NHS failure regimens in the backdrop of reconfiguration, it certainly oiled the wheels for the trolley of corporatision of the NHS. Labour’s contribution to PFI has been extensively discussed elsewhere, but it is a material fact that Coopers and Lybrand were extolling the wonders of PFI long before a Labour government, from the time of Major’s think tank in 1995. In 2011, Ed Miliband called for long-term shareholders to have greater voting rights in takeovers, backed workers on company remuneration committees and said he wanted to break up unwarranted private sector monopolies in banking, energy and the media. The problem is that, in adopting an uncritical narrative of ‘responsible capitalism’ for the NHS, one is assuming the agenda of capitalism. Is this reasonable?
For Labour, it’s easy to do this. For people who wish to support Labour, like members of the Socialist Health Association, support can be lazy. John Maynard Keynes called capitalism ‘the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone’. Mark Easton from the BBC has described that ‘responsible capitalism’ is an oxymoron, as “responsible” implies moral accountability while capitalism is driven by self-interest. A cornerstone of socialism is Marx’s philosophy of economic determinism, which identifies prevailing economic conditions as the motivating force behind all political and social activity. This materialistic worldview, is now deeply ingrained in American social, political, and religious philosophy, and attributes much human behaviour to the economic environment. This indeed paradoxically for libertarians thus frees man of personal responsibility for his own behaviour, and enslaves the individual to the free market. Neoliberalism, like socialism, in extreme can easily be argued as toxic.
Whilst Ed Miliband is doing political foreplay with the capitalist world, it could be a case of unrequited love. This takes on a Shakespearean dimension of tragedy, when you consider that Ed Miliband appears to have shunned his ‘socialist girlfriend’. While it’s Ed Miliband’s comments on Google and tax avoidance that will inevitably attract the most media attention, by far the more interesting section, perhaps, of his speech at the company’s “Big Tent” event at The Grove hotel in Hertfordshire was on capitalism and socialism. The Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt rejected the idea put forward by Labour leader Ed Miliband that the search giant should practise “responsible capitalism”, arguing the company simply follows international tax laws – which he described as “irrational”. This problem for Labour, now relevant to how much of the NHS should be re-allocated into private hands, therefore introduces the concept of “responsible socialism”. In a reference to Labour’s old clause IV, which called for “common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange”, Miliband added that “It wasn’t just my dad who thought it, of course. Until 1995 this view was enshrined on the membership card of the party I now lead.” However, “red baiting” — the process of referring to one’s opponents as “socialists,” and relying on that word alone to silence opposition — remains one of the oldest tricks in the Tories’ “rulebook”. Ideological opponents to socialism often use the term “socialist” to refer to any increase in government power. That is arguably, not strictly speaking, historically accurate. “Socialism” is not a direction. Historically, socialism has only one meaning: a system in which the state — or the workers directly — own the means of production.
It is said socialism may have emerged from a discontent with what remained of the feudal state after the French Revolution of 1789, and with the emergent, eminently abusive nature of pure laissez faire industry. For the peasant and working classes, there was a sense that real change had been within grasp at the turn of the 18th century. Marx developed a theory whose purpose, in part, to embrace this frustration and lessons from other jurisdictions: socialism — which Marx regarded as a means to an end — was a hybrid capitalist/Communist system, in which the means of production were publicly owned, but working and bourgeoisie classes remained separate, and therefore, to Marx, impermissibly unequal. It can be argued that some politicians, like Nixon and LaGuardia, took deliberate and permanent possession of private property, for the collective benefit of their constituents, and yet neither modern America nor New York City can fairly be called socialist. Whatever socialism might be, it is not straight-forward. However, it is perhaps time to start stop trying to scare floating voters with “the spectre of Communism” and, as a nation, finally make peace with the fact that United Kingdom, like the United States, is not, nor has it been for some time, a pure laissez faire nation, because fundamentally the public will not accept it. Socialism, like all political philosophies is a complicated and diverse ideology. It has like all ideologies its pros and cons. It has its tradeoffs. Yet, like all political philosophies, it needs to address actively its downsides to be at its best. People do not dare mention that S word. They prefer the other S word: “Social” (and “D” for Democratic).
It is therefore time to change the narrative away from ‘responsible capitalism’ and to contemplate an approach of ‘responsible socialism’ as well, perhaps? The irony of NHS England is that it is the biggest QUANGO in the land, but the possible advantage is that it could implement a coherent public health policy genuinely for the ‘health of the nation’. Responsible socialism, whilst felt as a tautology by some and an oxymoron by others, potentially can dispose of irrelevant, meaningless pseudo-choice, and eliminate the unnecessary transaction costs in waste and inefficiency injected by a free market. Critical friends of Labour can do no more better than to think about innovative ways of standing up for what they believe in. This will ultimately, I feel, earn more respect from the senior echelons in Labour. While Ed Miliband may be ‘right’ about ‘responsible capitalism’, there are so many bandwagons we can all jump on, and taking about responsible capitalism in the NHS might suggest we have given up on socialism for good.
Ed Miliband's 2012 conference speech this afternoon emphasising a skilled economy will be seminal
Last year’s Labour conference speech in Manchester had rather mixed reviews, but as John Denham MP pointed out at the policy discussion of the Fabian Society the concept of ‘responsible capitalism’ did not mysteriously appear from outer space. ‘Responsible capitalism’ is based on a popular trending business idea from Prof Michael Porter at Harvard, articulating an argument of business strategy in the context of being a responsible corporate citizen in society.
This week’s conference in Manchester commenced with an inspiring speech by Prof Michael Sandel, a political philosopher from Harvard, providing intelligent capital in a dialogue with his audience about ‘the public good’. On the day before Eric Hobsbawn, valued for his histories discussing the tension between marxism and capitalism, sadly died at the age of 95, the debate has temporarily turned to whether intellectuals have any useful rôle in public life. Ed Miliband, in his limited time as leader since the 2010 conference also held at Manchester, has made his views on the ‘inclusive economy’ known, rejecting division and artificial distinction between the private and public sector.
The challenge for Ed Miliband is not to become as a the man who ‘released the inner geek within you’, and who can communicate with, and more significantly, represent the strong anxieties and concerns of ordinary potential Labour voters. Angela Eagle MP last night referred to a ‘tsunami resulting from a failed austerity programme’, and there is a growing realisation that there is a genuine disconnect between Labour and millions of non-voters who cannot even remember why they did not vote for any political party (according to Peter Kellner and YouGov).
I spoke with Lord Adonis yesterday evening after the policy panel discussion of the Fabians. His views are entirely consistent with the three planks of the intensive policy review under Jon Cruddas, focusing on the economy, society, and political process. I found Lord Adonis extremely pleasant to talk with, as he is intensively positive about a ‘skills economy’. Individuals can no longer take jobs ‘for granted’, and even government departments have been reluctant to take on apprentices. It is a narrative, which I strongly believe in. The shift in gear from university towards apprentices, as Adonis freely admits, has the characteristics of a ‘push-pull’ phenomenon, with a push away from the horrors created by the hike in tuition fees, and pull away towards ‘relevant skills’. Whilst Tony Blair was keen to promote ‘education, education, education’ (indeed the title of Adonis’ new book), a more relevant mantra might be ‘skills, skills, skills’.
This year, I was struck with the official statistics from the Office for National Statistics regarding employment. These statistics show a strong economy in London, but a workforce showing characteristics of being increasingly part-time and consisting of ‘independent contractors’. There is now a challenge for the left to think about how employment rights of freelancers can be vigorously protected, and the Fabians have produced an interesting policy document called ‘New forms of work’ discussing this. There is a perpetual battle for Unions not to appear nor to be irrelevant in the new modern, flexible workforce, and as Prof. Patricia Leighton describes in this policy document such workers can become separated from employment and social security rights. Degrees can indeed seem irrelevant in the ‘job hunt’, with many people competing even just to get an interview, with a II.1 from a good university. Graduates wish their qualifications to be relevant, and Ed Miliband’s desire for people to have access to vocational qualifications is a marked antithesis to the approach taken by Michael Gove. Ed Miliband’s drive here is reminiscent of the ‘equality of opportunity’, a theme which Sandel often goes back to, and certainly a more skilled workforce earning a salary ultimately in a full-top salaried job ultimately benefits the economy. This again is consistent with the ‘predistribution’ doctrine of Prof Jacob Hacker from Yale. It also chimes with the work of young campaigners within grassroots Labour, like Sam Tarry, who have often mourned the lack of an infrustructure for apprenticeships in an era still of troubling youth employment.
In the same way that the economy most blatantly needs to be rebalanced, with some individuals earning vastly inflated salaries as CEO (and who might be targets for the redistribution debate so beloved of Labour strategists), there is a growing appreciation that the education discussion needs to be reframed. In particular, an unresolved issue from the last few decades has been the erroneous perception of vocational qualifications as being seen as ‘inferior’. I perceive that there is much profitability in sectors such as IT/programming, as there never seems to be a shortage of people wanting websites (different from the age of where we needed a lot of people with skills such as mechanical welding). I not only think that vocational training such as nursing (and indeed in paralegal or legal support work) can be rewarding in all senses for all those concerned, but may indeed be valuable export industries for the UK. The explosive growth of the services industry was discussed in Evan Davis’ “Made in Britain” episode 3 in November 2011, and indeed law and medicine, which bridge both professional academic and vocational skills-based practitioner disciplines, could indeed become the ‘wealth creation’ industries so beloved of the right wing.
Rachel Reeves MP, this week, in two separate sessions for the Fabian Society, remarked on the relative success of Dizzy Rascal. Dizzee Rascal has been promoting ‘Futureversity’, which hosts an annual programme for youngsters aged 11 to 25 includes free ‘taster’ courses and activities combining academic and vocational study, personal development and volunteering. The aim is to help reduce street crime by raising youngsters’ aspirations, improving their confidence and self-esteem and breaking down social, racial and religious tensions in an area with the country’s highest youth unemployment at 25 per cent.
In this way, one can understand how Ed Miliband appears to be genuinely motivated by ‘aspiration’. This is not aspiration in the narrowed definition of individualistic empowerment by Margaret Thatcher, but an idea of aspiration building a stronger community with strong values of solidarity. Of course, it would be utterly useless if Miliband’s aspirations were simply aspirational. It is reported that, this afternoon, Ed Miliband will propose a German style shakeup of post-18 apprenticeships, in which companies, on an industry or regional basis, can sign legally enforceable agreements requiring all participating firms to pay a levy to cover the cost of training, so – ending the scourge of freeloading companies refusing to pay the costs of apprenticeships, but stealing skilled staff from firms that do train. Miliband will also give businesses control of the £1bn budget of the Skills Agency.
Whether you believe it is the correct strategy, or indeed tactic, for Ed Miliband to go on a journey of ‘self discovery’ through personal branding, acquiring a different market strategic position to David Cameron, whose narrative could be motivating to those who seek to get top First class honours degrees in Oxford only ‘to make a difference’, you can see that the discussion is already upsetting parts of the media. I suspect that the general reporting of this, compared to ‘responsible capitalism’, will be less of a problem in the long run, but I am in fact supremely confident that Ed Miliband’s conference speech this afternoon, emphasising a skilled economy, will in fact be seminal.
Ed Miliband's 2012 conference speech this afternoon emphasising a skilled economy will be seminal
Last year’s Labour conference speech in Manchester had rather mixed reviews, but as John Denham MP pointed out at the policy discussion of the Fabian Society the concept of ‘responsible capitalism’ did not mysteriously appear from outer space. ‘Responsible capitalism’ is based on a popular trending business idea from Prof Michael Porter at Harvard, articulating an argument of business strategy in the context of being a responsible corporate citizen in society.
This week’s conference in Manchester commenced with an inspiring speech by Prof Michael Sandel, a political philosopher from Harvard, providing intelligent capital in a dialogue with his audience about ‘the public good’. On the day before Eric Hobsbawn, valued for his histories discussing the tension between marxism and capitalism, sadly died at the age of 95, the debate has temporarily turned to whether intellectuals have any useful rôle in public life. Ed Miliband, in his limited time as leader since the 2010 conference also held at Manchester, has made his views on the ‘inclusive economy’ known, rejecting division and artificial distinction between the private and public sector.
The challenge for Ed Miliband is not to become as a the man who ‘released the inner geek within you’, and who can communicate with, and more significantly, represent the strong anxieties and concerns of ordinary potential Labour voters. Angela Eagle MP last night referred to a ‘tsunami resulting from a failed austerity programme’, and there is a growing realisation that there is a genuine disconnect between Labour and millions of non-voters who cannot even remember why they did not vote for any political party (according to Peter Kellner and YouGov).
I spoke with Lord Adonis yesterday evening after the policy panel discussion of the Fabians. His views are entirely consistent with the three planks of the intensive policy review under Jon Cruddas, focusing on the economy, society, and political process. I found Lord Adonis extremely pleasant to talk with, as he is intensively positive about a ‘skills economy’. Individuals can no longer take jobs ‘for granted’, and even government departments have been reluctant to take on apprentices. It is a narrative, which I strongly believe in. The shift in gear from university towards apprentices, as Adonis freely admits, has the characteristics of a ‘push-pull’ phenomenon, with a push away from the horrors created by the hike in tuition fees, and pull away towards ‘relevant skills’. Whilst Tony Blair was keen to promote ‘education, education, education’ (indeed the title of Adonis’ new book), a more relevant mantra might be ‘skills, skills, skills’.
This year, I was struck with the official statistics from the Office for National Statistics regarding employment. These statistics show a strong economy in London, but a workforce showing characteristics of being increasingly part-time and consisting of ‘independent contractors’. There is now a challenge for the left to think about how employment rights of freelancers can be vigorously protected, and the Fabians have produced an interesting policy document called ‘New forms of work’ discussing this. There is a perpetual battle for Unions not to appear nor to be irrelevant in the new modern, flexible workforce, and as Prof. Patricia Leighton describes in this policy document such workers can become separated from employment and social security rights. Degrees can indeed seem irrelevant in the ‘job hunt’, with many people competing even just to get an interview, with a II.1 from a good university. Graduates wish their qualifications to be relevant, and Ed Miliband’s desire for people to have access to vocational qualifications is a marked antithesis to the approach taken by Michael Gove. Ed Miliband’s drive here is reminiscent of the ‘equality of opportunity’, a theme which Sandel often goes back to, and certainly a more skilled workforce earning a salary ultimately in a full-top salaried job ultimately benefits the economy. This again is consistent with the ‘predistribution’ doctrine of Prof Jacob Hacker from Yale. It also chimes with the work of young campaigners within grassroots Labour, like Sam Tarry, who have often mourned the lack of an infrastructure for apprenticeships in an era still of troubling levels of youth (un)employment.
In the same way that the economy most blatantly needs to be rebalanced, with some individuals earning vastly inflated salaries as CEO (and who might be targets for the redistribution debate so beloved of Labour strategists), there is a growing appreciation that the education discussion needs to be reframed. In particular, an unresolved issue from the last few decades has been the erroneous perception of vocational qualifications as being seen as ‘inferior’. I perceive that there is much profitability in sectors such as IT/programming, as there never seems to be a shortage of people wanting websites (different from the age of where we needed a lot of people with skills such as mechanical welding). I not only think that vocational training such as nursing (and indeed in paralegal or legal support work) can be rewarding in all senses for all those concerned, but may indeed be valuable export industries for the UK. The explosive growth of the services industry was discussed in Evan Davis’ “Made in Britain” episode 3 in November 2011, and indeed law and medicine, which bridge both professional academic and vocational skills-based practitioner disciplines, could indeed become the ‘wealth creation’ industries so beloved of the right wing.
Rachel Reeves MP, this week, in two separate sessions for the Fabian Society, remarked on the relative success of Dizzy Rascal. Dizzee Rascal has been promoting ‘Futureversity’, which hosts an annual programme for youngsters aged 11 to 25 includes free ‘taster’ courses and activities combining academic and vocational study, personal development and volunteering. The aim is to help reduce street crime by raising youngsters’ aspirations, improving their confidence and self-esteem and breaking down social, racial and religious tensions in an area with the country’s highest youth unemployment at 25 per cent.
In this way, one can understand how Ed Miliband appears to be genuinely motivated by ‘aspiration’. This is not aspiration in the narrowed definition of individualistic empowerment by Margaret Thatcher, but an idea of aspiration building a stronger community with strong values of solidarity. Of course, it would be utterly useless if Miliband’s aspirations were simply aspirational. It is reported that, this afternoon, Ed Miliband will propose a German style shakeup of post-18 apprenticeships, in which companies, on an industry or regional basis, can sign legally enforceable agreements requiring all participating firms to pay a levy to cover the cost of training, so – ending the scourge of freeloading companies refusing to pay the costs of apprenticeships, but stealing skilled staff from firms that do train. Miliband will also give businesses control of the £1bn budget of the Skills Agency.
Whether you believe it is the correct strategy, or indeed tactic, for Ed Miliband to go on a journey of ‘self discovery’ through personal branding, acquiring a different market strategic position to David Cameron, whose narrative could be motivating to those who seek to get top First class honours degrees in Oxford only ‘to make a difference’, you can see that the discussion is already upsetting parts of the media. I suspect that the general reporting of this, compared to ‘responsible capitalism’, will be less of a problem in the long run, but I am in fact supremely confident that Ed Miliband’s conference speech this afternoon, emphasising a skilled economy, will in fact be seminal.
That Serco should wish to manage the 'Big Society' makes excellent business sense
That Serco should wish to manage the ‘Big Society’ makes excellent business sense: by this, I don’t mean that I approve of Serco ‘running the Big Society’, but I think it makes sense for a large corporate to wish to been in participating in ethical capitalism. It would be rather disingenious if we were to show hostility to this, just because it’s Serco (effectively). In a sense, corporates are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. New Labour cosied up to the City, and wanted to be seen as the party which embraced ‘business’ – for ‘business’, they meant the City and corporates. A wider drive, which has taken place in the USA, is how corporates can be included as worthy members of the rest of the society; in such a society, bankers would have an important rôle to play in society as wealth creators, while people in the public sector, while perhaps not contributing towards wealth, are doing worthy jobs such as nursing or teaching (and indeed are members of the Unions).
A criticism of public limited companies, such as Circle, which have been keen to be seen as embracing ‘The Big Society’ is that they appear to have antagonised relationships with the unions. The recent rift between UNISON and Hinchingbrooke Hospital is a case-in-point. That Serco is one of the major bidders of ‘The Big Society’ is a sign that Serco, whilst generating £4bn in revenue last year, thinks it can generate a shareholder dividend, while participating in something which it considers to be worthwhile (The National Citizen Service).
Ed Miliband’s formulation of ‘responsible capitalism’ is effectively corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR is all about companies going beyond legal obligations and their own financial interests to address and manage the impact their activities have on society and the environment. Corporates often try to develop a CSR brand which embraces a much more diverse range of stakeholders. A “good corporate citizen” is expected to address the concerns and satisfy the expectations of individuals and groups who can affect or be affected by the company‘s activities.
The move by Serco to be involved in a major ‘Big Society’ initiative, some might say, in fact makes perfect business sense. In such a framework, the “corporate brand”, which applies a single brand across the entire company, must appeal simultaneously to these diverse stakeholder groups. A corporate brand is likely to be linked intrinsically to the identity of the company; thus it encompasses the distinct attributes and values of the company to define for what the company stands, and relates to what is promised and expected in identity terms.
However, this strategy has not always been successful. Toyota received a reputation for environmental responsibility by introducing its celebrated ‘hybrid’, the Prius. However, even as Toyota enjoyed phenomenal awareness levels and positive associations, in addition to sales bumps, it suffered from increased attention to its corporate actions. Loyal Prius owners, special interest groups, and NGOs vigorously challenged Toyota’ s lobbying efforts (in cooperation with Ford and General Motors) against tougher U.S. fuel economy standards. These conflicting messages— namely, advertising that claimed “harmony between man, nature, and machine” together with corporate actions that seemingly harmed the environment— undermined both the corporate brand and the product brands.
Such a strategy is also fraught with potential dangers from within Serco itself. For example, Serco might find that there is an increasing need to deal with stakeholders’ demands discursively. The pluralism of global cultures and values means there is no ultimate frame of reference, or ultimate “right answer”. Even honest, sincere brand-related stories can induce both positive and negative public discussion that might alter and perhaps damage the way consumers and other stakeholders perceive the brand.
It is, however, perfectly possible for Serco to make a success of its Big Society plan. Managers of these highly visible CSR performers, such as the U.S. giants Starbucks or Timberland, face pressures associated with accountability, limited resources, and public governance; they also make more direct comparisons of the value of investing in CSR than do managers of privately owned companies.
Wonks take note – Prof Porter, head at Harvard, and Ed Miliband are talking about the same thing
I am getting sick-and-tired of how many ‘experienced’ Labour bloggers, wonk-types and other politicos have no business nous. Please, when you’re reporting it, be aware that this is not a political idea which has come out of nowhere. It is a fundamental concept on all of the major corporate websites, including corporate law firms, called ‘corporate social responsibility’, explaining how corporates should have due respect for people, planet, and profit. For Greens, there’s an emphasis on the environment, for the Conservatives shareholder dividend (including A4e and G4s); but for us, even though we’ve been educated to be ashamed of them, the workers, you know the people who keep the education and health service alive – the Unions, the largest democratic movement in this country (as Owen Jones recently described in his set piece speech for NetrootsUK 2012). It’s really important that politicians who are involved in creating law understand what is going on in the outside world, particularly since many of them have no other experience, save for being a SPAD or other professional type. I should then like to defer discussion of this to Prof Michael Porter, at Harvard. He is saying exactly the same thing as Ed Miliband’s ‘responsible capitalism’ formulation. For people who do not understand the value of the workers in the organisation, or the value of the customers, often ignored in the public sector or in utility companies, this video is well worth watching.
A senior business professional in the US, Michael Hopkins, describes the situation well:
“A heady mix of greed, overconfidence and the use of poor business models that showed up flawed strategies caused the global financial collapse of one year ago.Banks and other financial institutions are once again in the news for paying huge bonuses on the backs of taxpayers’ bail outs.Is the merry go round of greed, overconfidence and flawed strategies about to spin again?”
Here is an extract from Polly Toynbee’s absolutely brilliant (in my humble view) op. of it:
“Miliband owns this turf: he earned it with his conference speech, considering the contempt from Cameron’s press and Blairites fearing he’d fatally broken the New Labour formula. Now he says he is breaking with that Labour past, and Cameron’s present. There is nothing anti-business about cleansing cheats, asset-strippers and vultures from honest savings and good business enterprise: Cameron has been forced to agree.
How has this change happened? UK Uncut‘s pithy demonstrations at TopShop and Vodafone graphically exposed tax avoidance. The Guardian’s Tax Gap series on companies avoiding £25bn tax through havens and loopholes provided facts. Occupy captured a public anger that conventional politics ignored. The High Pay Commission, set up by the left-leaning thinktank Compass, proved hugely influential, as did Will Hutton’s report on high pay in the public sector, blaming City contamination. London Citizens galvanised communities. Avaaz and 38 Degrees with their petitions raised the decibels. Drip, drip, drip, the ice thaws, and the outlandish becomes conventional when working with the grain of public opinion.
Miliband’s message today is important. Social democratic values are more vital in hard times when there is no money. How you share diminished resources matters more than how you share a growing cake. Labour always said cuts were inevitable, and now there is less money since Osborne stifled growth and added to the deficit. Hard choices for how we tax and spend need social democratic priorities: we are not all in it together when I get un-means-tested winter fuel payments, free travel and heavy pension tax relief with no perceptible cuts.”
Meanwhile, Michael E. Porter is the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at Harvard Business School. As here, a university professorship is the highest professional recognition that can be awarded to a Harvard faculty member. Porter is a leading authority on company strategy, the competitiveness of nations and regions, and strategic approaches to societal problems, Professor Porter’s work is widely recognized in governments, corporations, non-profits, and academic circles across the globe. A sought after teacher, he also chairs Harvard Business School’s program for newly appointed CEOs of multibillion dollar corporations.
Based on the work of Porter and others, Hopkins concludes, “Moreover, the collapse of firms such as Enron, Lehman Brothers, and (now largely in public hands) General Motors who all suffered from poor strategic models shows that new business strategy models are essential. And, as argued here, a key message is that CSR is becoming a, if not, the core of business activity.It is fast becoming acknowledged that a strategic stakeholder model of engagement with the business environment means that the potential for avoiding disasters and increasing success and innovation can be increased.CSR is obviously not a panacea for all ills but more and more companies are seeing that it can enhance their competitive advantage.”
I am prepared to bet a huge amount of money that Ed’s speech for the Labour Conference in 2011 will be seen in retrospect as one of the most important political speeches of a generation in my lifetime.
Source: Harvard website.
For a fuller explanation, you are strongly advised to refer to this blog.
