Pilant’s Business Ethics CBS NewsChris MacDonald has an intriguing entry this time. He discusses the conundrum of goods which with some moderation pose little harm but without moderation can do great harm. He, then unwilling to dodge the difficult questions, asks what responsibility if any does the producer in these cases have. I would summarize what he has to say, but my poor powers of exposition are nowhere in the league of the writing itself. You should read it.
James Pilant
Like the Catholic Church, the Protestant denominations were torn by controversies over the economic and social changes brought on by industrialization during the latter part of the 19th century. There were two approaches to this. One was the Social Gospel. The other was a focus on religious matters and neutrality toward economic issues.
Mainline Protestant churches like the Methodists, Lutherans, and to a lesser extent the Episcopalians chose the Social Gospel. The Southern Baptists chose neutrality.
The Social Gospel is based on the belief that for Christ to arrive on earth, humans must prepare the planet by moving the world toward righteousness.
The movement begins slowly in the 1870’s and builds up influence until by the 1910’s, it is a major force on the American political scene.
Today, the mainline Protestant Churches meet regularly and reaffirm their belief in the importance of economic justice.
The Principles of the United Methodist Church
Methodists have a long history of social activism being one of the first churches to advocate women’s rights, oppose the slave trade and advocate for humane conditions in American jails prisons.
The Church adopted its first social creed in 1908. I quote in full
We deem it the duty of all Christian people to concern themselves directly with certain practical industrial problems. To us it seems that the churches must stand ¡ª
For equal rights and complete justice for all men in all stations of life.
For the right of all men to the opportunity for self-maintenance, a right ever to be wisely and strongly safeguarded against encroachments of every kind.
For the right of workers to some protection against the hardships often resulting from the swift crises of industrial change.
For the principle of conciliation and arbitration in industrial dissensions.
For the protection of the worker from dangerous machinery, occupational disease, injuries and mortality.
For the abolition of child labor.
For such regulation of the conditions of toil for women as shall safeguard the physical and moral health of the community.
For the suppression of the “sweating system.”
For the gradual and reasonable reduction of the hours of labor to the lowest practicable point, and for that degree of leisure for all which is a condition of the highest human life.
For a release from employment one day in seven.
For a living wage as a minimum in every industry, and for the highest wage that each industry can afford.
For the most equitable division of the products of industry that can ultimately be devised.
For suitable provision for the old age of the workers and for those incapacitated by injury.
For the abatement of poverty.
To the toilers of America and to those who by organized effort are seeking to lift the crushing burdens of the poor, and to reduce the hardships and uphold the dignity of labor, this Council sends the greeting of human brotherhood and the pledge of sympathy and of help in a cause which belongs to all who follow Christ.
The current Methodist approach to Business Ethics is encapsulated in their “Social Principles of the United Methodist Church 2009 – 2012.” These principles are revised every four years. This document is divided into seven sections. Although Section IV entitled “The Economic Community” deals directly with business ethics, many other sections are directly relevant.
Section IV is in 10 sections:
1. Property
2. Collective Bargaining
3. Work and Leisure
4. Consumption
5. Poverty
6. Foreign Workers
7. Gambling
8. Family Farms
9. Corporate Responsibility
10. Trade and Investment
The Property section advocates ownership of property although with limitations for the public good. In essence, all ownership of property is a responsibility to God.
The Collective Bargaining section supports the right of workers to organize unions and for bargaining between management and unions to take place in an atmosphere of fair dealing devoid of violence or worker replacement. It also calls for innovative changes such as representatives of the public interest.
The Work and Leisure Section calls for a “living wage.” There are a number of definitions of the phrase, living wage. A simple one would be “a salary large enough so that a worker could afford the basic amenities of life: food, housing, etc, while also providing enough resources for meaningful leisure time. This is of course a gross simplification of a difficult concept. There is also a call for government intervention for full employment. However, the most important words from this section are the following:
“We believe that persons come before profit. We deplore the selfish spirit that often pervades our economic life.”
This quote is indicative of a mind set that disputes the idea that money is the measure of all things, a rejection of the moral minimum and a call to act without always being focused on self interest.
The section on consumption advocates the manufacture of useful goods without damaging the environment or using slave labor in its production.
The section on poverty calls for a fairer distribution of the world’s resources. To quote:
“As a church, we are called to support the poor and challenge the rich.”
The section on Foreign Workers calls for limitations on the exploitation of these workers and advocates that they receive the same benefits and privileges of citizen workers.
The seventh section concerns Gambling. The Methodist Church is against it.
The eighth section is about Family Farms. This actually covers a much wider area. The Church opposes the concentration of farming resources into the hands of transnational corporations. They believe that the family farm has an enduring value and deserves state action in its support.
The ninth section concerns itself with Corporate Responsibility. This is the first paragraph.
Corporations are responsible not only to their stockholders, but also to other stakeholders: their workers, suppliers, vendors, customers, the communities in which they do business, and for the earth, which supports them. We support the public’s right to know what impact corporations have in these various arenas, so that people can make informed choices about which corporations to support.
The last section deals with International Trade. It affirms a belief in the importance of such trade but calls for safeguards for human dignity and the environment.
James Pilant
David Moon at Knoxvillebiz decries reliance on the federal government. He is particularly incensed by the money provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (Mortgage giants). I disagree with his position but I agree this whole bailout business has been a boon to the banks and little has been asked in return. I worry about the mortgage holders, not the villains who preyed on them like deranged vultures.
Edward Lotterman at TwinCities.com explains the difference between cyclical and structural problems in the economy. He explains that the problems besetting us are structural and take a long time to sort out. Lotterman is excellent teacher of economics. If you follow his columns you will pick up the jargon and understand the key terms.
Tell me I’m awesome every day — I’ll pay you. is the intriguing name of Jay Hancock’s current column. It seems there is a company that will call you up once a day for a month for $10 and tell you how awesome you are. I will now quote the quote Mr. Hancock uses from the company’s advertisement (Do you suppose I will ever get the opportunity to quote the quote from another quote?) -
With AwesomenessReminders, a real person will call you every day to tell you how much you rock. If you’re not around, we will leave you a voicemail. Our founder, Zack Burt, has studied psychology in-depth at the university level and found that social reinforcement is critical to maintaining our “frames”, also known as our “point of view”. Getting positive social feedback, via a daily reminder call, is instrumental to progress. Experts agree. This study from Wake Forest University also shows that social feedback has clear effects on self-esteem, even if individuals claim that they are unaffected by social feedback.
Keith Chrostowski from the Kansas City Star quotes Milton Friedman, “The social responsibility of business is to increase profits.” (This, of course, is a magnificent philosophy if the destruction of your nation is your intent.) Chrostowski is urging the formation of “B” corporations. This kind of corporation is designed to make a profit and do good, socially useful good. This turns Mr. Friedman’s insane prediliction for Utopian abstractions on its head. There is a web site where the “B” corporation idea is being pushed. You might give it a look.
Jon Talton in his column, Sound Economy, writes about the demise of “Shareholder Nation.” This was the idea that the great majority of Americans would realize the sound investment qualities of the stock market and invest their money. These Americans were taken to the cleaners in the last two years and are fleeing the stock market and its pseudo security. The idea of shareholder nation has fallen victim to the cold, naked greed and incompetence of our banking class.
Loren Steffy, writing for the Houston Chronicle, explains the game that British Petroleum is playing with those injured by its gross incompetence. It seems that if you accept payment now before you have any real concept of the continuing damage you sign away your right to sue. If you refrain from accepting the settlement offer, you face years of litigation. It is difficult to find any column by Steffy to be anything but a good read, very consistent high quality.
It is difficult decision for me to make, but I have decided to talk about the government response to the spill and here is my opinion.
The federal government’s response to the catastrophe in the gulf was ill conceived, strongly favorable to BP, a failure of leadership and grossly incompetent. The government failed in its most basic responsibility to protect its citizens and threw its lot in with the perpetrators of a vast economic disaster. It is difficult to conceive of any possible decision making worse than what the government has done. It calls into question the basic competence of the current administration.
