Natural Capital – CIMA – Ethical Lens

February’s edition of CIMA’s (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants) Ethical Lens –  features my blog post from November 27, 2013 – Being Cynical About Natural Capitalism

Ethical Lens says:

“In his blog, Jeff Kaye FCMA CGMA , Chair of Future Brilliance Limited, writes about the challenges and possible moral implications of “pricing the priceless”. Highlighting that GDP rose during the BP oil spill, he argues that GDP and numbers won’t always be a good indicator of of how businesses or communities are doing.”

Ethical Lens goes on to report on Integrated Reporting as one of the ways that business is reporting on wider social issues.

It is interesting to re-read Eric Hobsbaum’s “Age of Extremes” about the world between 1914 and 1991, where he refers to John Maynard Keynes’s focus on macro-economics (virtually his invention) and that national estimates of the size of an economy were not developed until after the Second World War probably with an eye to the USSR.

“The first governments to do so were the USSR and Canada in 1925. By 1939 nine countries had official government statistics of national income, and the League of Nations had estimates for twenty-six in all. Immediately after the Second World War estimates were available for thirty-nine, in the middle 1950’s for ninety-three and since then national income figures, often with only the remotest connection with the realities of their people’s livelihood, have become almost as standard for independent states as national flags.”

Eric Hobsbaum, Age of Extremes.

Advertisements

Schools get fleeced – and we all watch

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism recently published an article (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/09/25/schools-fleeced-by-it-scammers/comment-page-1/#comment-9117) following the exposure on Panorama (BBC 1) that schools in the UK had been “fleeced” by IT companies (“scammers”). The article and Panorama drew attention to schools which are burdened by the need to run themselves as businesses and are often ill-equipped to do so when set against the complicated requirements of funding, procurement, suppliers and the like.

 

The BIJ summed up the problem with the thought that the FMSiS (Financial Management Standard in Schools) had been wrongly abolished and that the Government should think again. It was abolished after it had become a paper ticking exercise as reported by the Government in 2010 in their White Paper – “The Importance of Teaching” – http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a0067711/government-announces-end-of-complex-school-financial-reporting-tool.

 

The BIJ article missed the fact that most of the schemes that Panorama reported on were entered into while the FMSiS was in place!

 

Why is Finance so hard for non-profits (public and private sector)?

 

This does not just happen in Schools – it happens wherever greater knowledge is brought to bear.

 

So, the banks have run out of control and, five years’ later, we remain stunned that the financial regulators did not see this coming – or even understand the huge range of sub-prime schemes, poor management controls, over-leveraging, bad morality, lack of risk aversion, inability for banks to fail, dislike of customers and similar.

 

In the same way, companies like Enron fooled their highly paid auditors (some of whom connived with them) – we never learned much from that or from the countless, other financial scams that have been served up on unsuspecting publics since at least the south Sea Bubble in 1720 and for thousands of years before.

 

But, we expect more from public sector and the third sector organisations that supposedly guard our taxes and donations. What makes it so hard for them to adequately ensure that the financial and support arms of those organisations are able to be a good as all those they work with?

 

Where the incentives are

 

Of course, much has been written about how the wealth potential of banks suck in those with the highest intelligence and motivation (and maybe those with the lowest ethics) and that the regulators are filled with those who cannot compete – maybe those who failed to make it in banking themselves.

 

Enron was full of highly motivated and driven people who bought into a scheme (or schemes) and worked like fury to implement their scam / scheme. The manipulation of an energy market was not understood by the regulators and auditors just as auditors and clients failed to understand how Bernie Madoff was making such returns on their “investments”.

 

In a money-driven economy, which has created tremendous wealth for society, there are, at the margins and even more in the centre, incentives provided to people that lure those who are massively motivated and driven to participate – to work 24 hours a day, to spend their time working up schemes to make money and their companies profitable. Business is a money-driven part of the economy in a way that the non-profit sectors (be they public or private sector) are not. The latter are full of people driven (and maybe just as motivated) by other things – a passion for human rights, for education, for people, for society – but not for the thing that drives those they may meet at the interface of private sector and the non-profits.

 

As Galbraith wrote in The Affluent Society, public goods are always at a disadvantage in a market-driven economy and the crucial problems always exist at the interface between the two.  I tackled this is a previous post – https://jeffkaye.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=192&action=edit – and the inability of societies to establish how to provide the “social balance” to which Galbraith refers enables the problems to persist – such as the fleecing of schools in the UK.

 

Enabling the “social balance”?

 

The “social balance” (Galbraith ibid) is about how society reacts to private enterprise. The most obvious example is the automobile – private industry propels the development of cars but it is the public sector that provides the roads, traffic control and policing, emergency services and hospitals (usually), pollution control and similar. India is a great and recent example – http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/india-car-sales-soar-where-054302682.html. But, the ability of the private sector runs well ahead of the ability of the public sector to react.

 

Nowhere is this lack of social balance clearer than in the provision of expertise in “back office” areas in the public sector and in the third sector. While their front of office capabilities may be excellent, the non-profit sector cannot, in the main, recruit the best people (it cannot offer financial incentives to match anything like the private sector) and therefore its systems and processes fall well behind.

 

This is compounded by the continuous belief by government that they have to “do something” directly (like the FMSiS above) and in the third sector that anything spent outside of front end is a waste of money. Donors (whether governments, trusts and foundations, companies or individuals) suddenly have a different mindset as soon as they donate. How many would ask companies to stop spending on finance operations – yet, many donors insist that their donations can only be applied to front end work – the cause – and nothing to overheads. While it is good to keep overheads low, governance and financial management dictate that these “enabling” areas of any organization (like people management training) are as good as the front end operations so as not to stymie the work of the charity, NGO or pubic sector organization.

 

Having worked in all sectors (with most of my working life in the private sector) it is clear to me that the non-profit sectors are continuously starved of capability and expertise in the areas that could make them far more efficient and capable – not just to survive but also to enable far better work to be accomplished. If they work well it is in spite of the problems put in their way. Most don’t manage and the failures of the public sector to manage large IT projects, for example or the non-profit sector to survive continue.

 

So, how can the non-profits develop a response to the needed social balance so that they don’t get fleeced?

 

Pro-activity in the social balance

 

Governments and those who provide central governance to the non-profit sectors have undertaken so many actions and some have provided stability. But, each sector and those within it are challenged continuously.

 

What is needed is first, recognition that there is a problem. Each sector should assess where the main problems lie and government has to step up and signal that it will not do everything but begin to be the chief enabler for the non-profits. For example, restrictive funding for charities, whereby donors only provide money for front-end purposes, should not be allowed. The practice is akin to shareholders telling companies which part of the business their funding is allowed on. It is not a loan – it is a donation and restrictions mean more bureaucracy and less ability for the charity to manage itself.

 

If a donor believes that a charity spends too much on overheads, it can withhold donations just like a shareholder can invest elsewhere – but restricting funding in this way is counter-productive.

 

In the UK, this is something for the charities Commission and government to act on.

 

Second, there has to be a stepping up on ability – which will lead to improved processes and systems (although improvements in each need money as well and the proposal above is one way of directing more into this area).

 

This stepping up of ability should be driven by government who should require firms of accountants to do what the legal profession does – provide at least 2% pro-bono capability into non-profits. I have been highly impressed by law firms’ ability to do excellent pro-bono – less so by the finance industry.

 

CSR divisions of companies should also be driving their best finance people into non-profits – in a meaningful way to address the social imbalance.

 

Governments should look to reward those who go from the private sector into the public or third sector (even for a time) with tax incentives (much like students having to repay their student loans). It is not a great time to do this, but it would indicate a lot.

 

Third, the big accounting organisations should ensure that they focus more attention on public sector and third sector – understanding the problems and devising exams and maybe alternative paths to accreditation rather than the one-size-fits-all approach. Certainly, the CIPFA and IPSASB provide the basics for the public sector but the incentivisation for the best to go into that sector let alone education or charities / NGO’s is far less and the number of accountants that enter the charity sector (for example) with the same skill levels and drive as those in the private sector is small.

 

Fourth, trustees from private sector organisations have to become involved – not just from a governance standpoint but setting examples and putting the bar as high as it needs to go to make the enablers work. This is hands-on stuff not just remote governance.

 

Separate sectors, common interests

 

Except in a society where the three sectors don’t exist (e.g. communist states), the challenge is greatest at the intersections of society – where the sectors clash. Yet, as in the example of automobiles above (or any other transportation systems), different sectors live off each other – and the charity sector fills many of the gaps that society does not see fit to fill in private or public sectors.

 

The sectors need to be different, of course, but there does need to be a far better understanding of the problems that our economic structures throw up and how to deal with them or fleecing of our schools will recur but be seen to be a mere tip of the social iceberg.

 

 

 

 

Two-speed economics – Technology and Governance

The Price of Externalities: Georgescu Roegen Extravagance

Fast lane – Markets at the speed of technology

Tom Standage’s book “The Victorian Internet” describes how the mass of wired communications – the telegraph – changed the developing world – (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Victorian-Internet-Tom-Standage/dp/0753807033/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347191394&sr=1-1).

As did Gutenberg’s printing press around 1450, the telegraph, the telephone, the fax, the mobile phone and now the internet and the world wide web continue to transform our ability to communicate and miscommunicate – instantaneously. There is no question that technological development races onwards. The human race has a special ability to make extraordinary progress in scientific research and understanding and in the application of that through engineering into products that transform the way we live.

The technological advance is propelled by the “marketplace” – where supply and demand perpetually force change.

Slow lane – Governance at the speed of bureaucracy

As we continue to make enormous gains in technology, our ability to keep up with the excesses of the market (market waste) is almost the opposite. It seems that we react late to technological advancement – delays that can cause inconvenience but also (at the extreme) loss of life.

Inconvenience: the UK awaits the Leveson Commission report into phone-hacking – the use of technology by certain newspapers to obtain salacious stories on (mainly) celebrities. Newspapers are closed, criminal prosecutions are under way and the possibility that press freedom will be curtailed.

Loss of life: the destruction of our environment through global warming (CO2 emissions and the potential for vast amounts of methane to be released by the rapidly melting glaciers) is a direct result of technology and manufacturing’s use of fossil fuels. It could prove just as damaging (or more) than the technology and development of weaponry that fuelled the two World Wars of the 20th Century.

The slow lane is inhabited by politicians and civil servants that exist in a variety of slow lane decision-making arenas. These could be democracies; they may be legalist governments such as China.

The slow lane is inhabited by the “mechanics of government” or “Market Governance Mechanisms” (MGM)– “governance”.

The tortoise and the hare

Since the development of governing institutions, those in government have continuously sought to control technology and its effects. From the control of counterfeiting (as in Newton’s day or now), developing health and safety standards, maintaining arms control, to reducing environmental degradation, people have put their faith in governments’ ability to manage the sweep of technology. Time after time, technology has been at the forefront and governance has been slow to catch up.

Aesop’s fable of the tortoise and the hare had the tortoise winning, but while the hare of technology can be tamed, it is continuously ahead of tortoise governance and, in the global economy we now inhabit, will extend that lead. It is only where governance is centralized and total (such as in Japan prior to the Treaty of Kanagawa in 1854 or where the government may be theistic such as with the Taliban) that the market is not allowed to exist at all and technology is starved.

As soon as market forces allow, the pace quickens. China is a recent example of a centralized, legalist state that remains in control but has opened up the marketplace – totalitarianism plus capitalism. Of course, the rise of technology is a serious threat to governance stability in China. This is exacerbated by world-wide communications technology that provides comparisons with the rest of the world to every region. This comparative data spreads the world on what is available and draws everyone to want the same – more products and the latest technology. The hare merely passes on the baton to the next hare.

In the same race?

The question of how Governance reacts to the market is being played out constantly. Whether it is the forlorn approach of international Governance to environmental issues or national Governance reaction to the internet or any number of other interactions, Governance and the governing seeks to manage technology and the effects of technology.

The rationale for Governance (and control) over technology is based on a mandate from the public (whether by vote via manifestos or on a perceived basis – as in China or a theistic basis or historic basis as in most of the Middle East). This mandate often runs against the market – and many, for example, Tea Party libertarians in the USA, believe that Government should play no part whatsoever in managing the market. They do not believe that Government has a role to play at all. This Ayn Rand view of the world, the most extreme market view of governance, believes that the “invisible hand” will provide the right result.

So, should technology be subject to control? Is this two-speed race real?

The answer has to be “yes” – but an acknowledgement that it is a race would be a start. Then, we may be able to establish some of the rules: rules which enable the development of products and technology while ensuring that the trade-offs that we have to endure are sufficient to allow us (and other life forms) to continue to survive.

Race to what?

The marketplace works best when there is an identifiable demand and an ability to supply. This is the basis upon which economics exists. The market, however, is but one aspect of our lives and the market cannot dictate whether a particular form of animal life is allowed to survive or whether desertification is made worse in Sudan, for example.

These are typical market externalities and the market appears to have no answer to such difficult outcomes. These are outside the market and the invisible hand assumes that they can be dealt with as externalities – and forgotten.

These externalities, or market anomalies, are where non-market forces reside. Much of this is the responsibility of market governance; some of it is charitable work or non-market, voluntary activities. However, technology is primarily (at least in the 21st Century) market driven (as opposed to driven by government spending on defence, which brought into play technological advances in the 19th and 20th Centuries).

The race that technology exists to fight is one of material “progress” (advances in health care, biotechnology and the like are within this area) where there is a defined demand.

Governance is then required to sweep up behind in ensuring that the advances or changes in technology are suitable or genuinely advantageous.

Of course, as Georgescu Roegen (a leading economist) stated in 1975: “Perhaps the destiny of man is to have a short but fiery, exciting, and extravagant life rather than a long, uneventful, and vegetative existence.”

Intersection: market and governance

At present, the governance of technological externalities problem is two-fold:

(1) Each nation works out its own response to changes – often many years behind the change itself

(2) There are serious world-wide technological implications – changes that impact regions and the world – not just nations.

The problems get bigger as the intersection of the marketplace and governance is mainly concerned with economics, not externalities. Yet, this may be the biggest problem concerning mankind. Working out how to properly manage the interaction between the marketplace and governance in terms of market externalities while allowing for competition (the essence of the market and the progenitor of technological change) may well be the biggest challenge we have. If capitalism is the norm – and through this the market economy – what role has governance of the market – nationally and internationally?

Can institutions that are already in place (such as the WTO or UN Conferences on the Environment or IAEA or any number of international institutions that operate today (see: http://www.genevainternational.org/pages/en/55;International_Organisations) keep up with the market whilst enabling or at least allowing the best of what the market does to flourish?

Is it even possible for the market – now on a global scale – to be centrally managed to the extent that externalities that we all pay for in terms of health and safety and maybe inter-generational catastrophes of the future can be in any meaningful way properly be taken into account?

Or, are there self-organizing principles that guide human evolution and probably guide our economic and technological progress which work and negate the need for any central institutions?

An Olympian Challenge

 

To repeat: the governance of market externalities may well be the major challenge that mankind has to bear.

Already, we may be dangerously close to bequeathing future generations with a challenge that may be unwinnable.

Whether it is genetic engineering, or nuclear warheads, or CO2 emissions or whatever, the global challenge is to admit that the challenge is a real one and that the market, left to its own devices, is unlikely to deliver the desired results in a timeframe that will allow life to continue to prosper – the Georgescu Roegen extravagance

Libertarians argue that we will ensure that technology and the market will find the solutions – a hope for the best approach that they believe will get us out of the Georgescu Roegen extravagance.

However, the danger that the challenge will be beyond the capability of the marketplace is large enough for us to consider the consequences of failure. The fact that we can obtain information quickly and internationally does not help unless we can use the information and make decisions quickly. Governance mechanisms are the opposite. It now looks increasingly like 19th Century institutions are incapable of addressing the negatives that the marketplace throws up – unpriced externalities Maybe the only way to solve the problems of the marketplace is through using technology and self-organization on a local basis so that externalities are assessed and redressed as appropriate.

This means that the role of international organizations would be to assist the process. Instead of not-for-profits like Witness (http://www.witness.org/) acting on their own to provide assistance to local groups (“See it, film it, change it”) it would be the role of large national and international institutions to enable local groups through technology. Markets are self-organizing but have created a degree of externality that is seriously and adversely impacting societies throughout the world. International governmental organizations are failing to come to terms with this. So, the role of national and international institutions has to be to equip and enable local groups – through finance and law changes but on a vast international scale.

Just like companies and government work together to develop the markets, so governments and NGO’s /local groups should be working to develop externality solutions (with the companies wherever possible) but on an international basis.

Research is ongoing such as at http://shapingsustainablemarkets.iied.org/ and sustainability in business is now a constant theme in best in class organizations. Those such a CIMA (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants – www.cimaglobal.com) have adopted sustainability and the role of senior management in delivering this for some time. Sustainability is the central mantra of organizations like Tomorrow’s Company (http://www.tomorrowscompany.com/) and the whole CSR movement.

But, just like microeconomics and macroeconomics never come together, so the business by business approach and the international institutional approaches never seem to gel.

Witness provides a great example of the ability of self-organization – governments, local, regional, national and international should now be harnessing the technologies to equip civil society to the same on a scale never before seen. Every national government should have an Externalities Minister – where such market problems are evaluated in total, practical help is provided to civil society to address the problems and genuine dialogue established with business. Governance and the markets would then be in the same race.

CGMA Managing Responsible Business webcast now live

Last month, participated in an Ethics panel run by CGMA and The Accountant Magazine.
This is now on a webcast:

http://www.cgma.org/Resources/Pages/future-of-ethics-webcast.aspx

It considers how Ethics should be at the centre of how we run our lives – not at the periphery; how society and its many sectors can contribute; how far we still have to go!

“Everyone should be allowed to bribe”

I had an interesting discussion the other day at a Fundraising event. Sitting opposite me was a businessman who also does a tremendous amount of work for charity. We got into a discussion on corruption – specifically, bribery. The discussion centred on how “the Bribery Act was causing business a lot of trouble” and that the UK “as always” was taking it seriously whereas other countries would not. We would therefore be undermined and lose business.

I argued differently. Working for Global Witness since 2007 (I left in late 2011), I had played a small part in working to get the Bill into law, then to ensure the guidelines made sense and have since worked with organizations like the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) to provide guidance (I wrote their guidance on the Act) and chaired their Bribery Act conference at St Paul’s Cathedral in 2011.

The businessman, actually a very interesting, successful and intelligent individual, suggested that, to make it fair, “everyone should be allowed to bribe” as much as they liked.

It was a Fundraising event, so not the time for a row – nevertheless, it reminded me sharply about how the world works and how it is split between those who understand the chaos that endemic bribery causes and those that see only the micro-economy (through the eyes of individual businesses) rather than the macro-economic chaos and individual misery that bribery causes.

We live in a disjointed world

I have recently been involved in the filming of a documentary on corruption that will go out later this year. So, although I have left Global Witness (which campaigns against natural resource-related corruption and conflict), I have stayed in touch with the issue.

It is easy when involved within an NGO to forget how business folk (as I counted myself for many years) can disassociate themselves from wider issues. I spent most of my career in business and those who are very successful are completely focused – like an athlete focused on winning a gold medal at the Olympics. The best are relentlessly single-minded in the pursuit of gold – the best business people are similar. This means that they are completely focused on what benefits their business.

This is why the US Chambers of Commerce have been waging a war on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for some time. The USA has, since the FCPA was brought into being in 1977, been way ahead of the field in anti-bribery law. This has heated up recently as the US authorities have piled into those who are believed to have breached the Act and, mainly through out of court settlements, have gained hundreds of millions of $ in fines and caused real change in US companies and how they operate outside the US especially.

But, the Chambers of Commerce believe that this puts the US at a disadvantage as other countries don’t have similar laws, they believe, or flout them.

Of course, this is no longer the case in many parts of the world. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention was signed up to by 39 countries and the Convention is a tough one. As a result, the UK was eventually shamed into all-party support for anti-bribery legislation and the Bribery Act was the outcome – which came into law in July, 2011. It is actually a tougher law than the FCPA – making facilitation payments illegal, for example, and making the bribery of anyone (including government officials) a criminal act if it affects a decision. However, if a company has good processes and trains its staff well (Adequate Procedures), Directors of the company are unlikely to be prosecuted. Let’s face it, the funding of prosecutions is also likely to mitigate against major cases being developed.

However, the Act has led to a large industry being developed in training and in new processes. I was on the working group in the UK that brought in guidance for the not-for-profits (charities and NGO’s) in the UK (under the auspices of Transparency International and Mango) so saw very clearly how every organization (business or not-for-profit) could be affected by the Act.

This new anti-bribery industry has seen a number of lawyers move from the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to private industry – confirmation if needed for business people that the whole thing is a cash generator for law firms and those in them and nothing more.

The equivalent of the “revolving door” that has been denigrated for years when politicians or civil servants enact laws or make project decisions and then move to senior positions in companies, is now taken as a serious concern by business people who see the same situation used against them! There is an irony there somewhere.

Corruption hurts

Business people see anti-bribery legislation as a problem. It makes business (in their opinion) more difficult in the same way that early 20th Century business people saw health and safety legislation as a problem. I am sure that many business people in the 19th Century saw government money being used to build the sewer system in London as a huge drain on their wealth and a public use of funds that proved that their wealth creation was being used against them – even if for the public good.

So, it must be galling to see anti-bribery legislation (which is international in concept and which is aimed at benefitting the poor in the poorest countries) put into force. In the USA, business is working to erode the law that has been in place successfully for 35 years – a law that has led the world. In the UK, there is irritation (maybe mounting anger) at the Bribery Act. And its implementation costs.

Business folk (and I was one for many years) see the short term and their bottom line. They find it hard to associate themselves with the wider questions about how corruption transfers wealth from the mass of people to a few – as, say, in Angola; how it ensures that money is spent on items that are not needed – very expensive air traffic control systems  in Tanzania, for example; how it adds to the price that poor nations pay; how nations like Nigeria are completely beholden to corruption as was England in the 18th Century – a nation where every job, every hospital appointment, every legal decision is likely to be subject to payment / bribes. Look at Greece and its current malaise – not paying tax is a symptom of a society corrupted – so much of the economy is bribery-induced – the black market is a corrupt market and leads to short-term benefits and long-term disaster.

Values are not for sale

The Bribery Act is now in place in the UK; the FCPA has been tried and tested in the USA for 35 years; 39 countries have signed up to the OECD convention. Yet, we probably face a bigger problem. The growth of nations such as China, India and Russia face us with enormous challenges as each nation is, in its own way, a centre of corruption.

China has adopted a Confucian posture – hit hard at home to rid itself of the endemic corruption that is at the centre of its totalitarian heart while allowing corruption to exist where it trades – such as in Africa. The Confucian spirit allows it to leave alone the nations with which it does business at the same time as Western nations attempt to apply governance to aid budgets. This is a time of real challenge and western countries should be working more than ever to instill values not just trying to compete for short-term gains. It used to be “if we don’t bribe, the French will”;  now the same phrase is directed at China, Russia and India (the home of www.Ipaidabribe.com).

We should not allow our values to be for sale for short-term benefits even in times of economic stress.

Is Bribery good for Business?

There are examples of businesses that have high values and most do not engage in bribery. Usually, those with the highest values are large businesses that know their CSR will be shaken by reputational problems. It makes business sense not to take the risk – bribery is bad for business.

Medium to small businesses, where the main opportunity for employment growth exists in most countries, are less concerned with CSR – which most think of as meaningless nonsense. Societal issues are way down the list of priorities – international issues are nowhere.

Hemmed in (in their view) by unjust legislation on all sides that seeks to choke off the spirit of enterprise, small businesses fight to survive daily. To them, bribery may be a necessary part of life. So what if people overseas suffer as a result – jobs are created for British firms and if we don’t do it, someone else (like the Chinese) will.

Globalisation in this context means nothing but cheap supply chains, cheap overseas labour and opportunities for exports. Globalisation does not mean we should take account of international problems.

Like 19th mill owners who fought sanitation bills as bad for business, who (in the main) were not interested in the health of their workers, who were only constrained by legal changes, many business people will only react to changes in the law because they are focused on their business and anything that adversely affects that business is bad – by its very nature. Bribery may allow business to take place – if a British company is not allowed to do it, business may well be lost.

Is bribery good for business? Of course not – just like the death of a worker because of shoddy safety systems, just like the gradual reduction in bullying at work because most acknowledge it is not needed – we inherently know that bribery (the corruption of people to make decisions go our way) is abhorrent. The impact is grotesque and cannot be justified even for a few extra short-term jobs.

Relentlessly focused business leaders know that bribery is wrong (at least most do) and, apart from the most extreme libertarians, understand that globalization means that the rules of business engagement are going to be made international. We cannot for long assume that developing countries will, for long, expect to be treated as the working class of 19th Century England. The class structure of international business will, over time, lessen just as we have made changes to our own class structure in Europe and North America and elsewhere.

Good business cannot “allow everyone to be bribed”. It is not just an ethical position, but a business one. Business should be undertaken on a level playing field where no-one bribes – we should be striving to ensure that bribery is minimized not allowed everywhere. Rules or norms are basic for societies to function. In a global society, the norms need to be widely applied. Bribery is bad – we all know it. Business leaders, here and in the USA, should be leading the fight – not over-reacting and running in the opposite direction.