The Emergence of Impact Investing

“How strange it is that a bird, under the form of a woodpecker, should have been created to prey on insects on the ground; that upland geese, which never or rarely swim, should have been created with webbed feet; that a thrush should have been created to dive and feed on sub-aquatic insects; and that a petrel should have been created with habits and structure fitting it for the life of an auk or grebe! and so on in endless other cases. But on the view of each species constantly trying to increase in number, with natural selection always ready to adapt the slowly varying descendants of each to any unoccupied or ill-occupied place in nature, these facts cease to be strange, or perhaps might even have been anticipated.” – Charles Darwin (1859), On the Origin of Species

In recent weeks, there has been a flight of investments out of so-called emerging markets and back into the warmer waters of the  USA, Japan and the UK. It is estimated that around $6 billion fled those markets in the last week alone. These countries vary widely in performance but they are all seen as next stage developing nations and include countries such as Mexico, South Korea, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Huge sums have poured into these countries over the last six years as a result of (primarily) QE (quantitative easing) in the USA. This is now being “tapered” so the fear of funds drying up begins. Stock markets are down throughout and currencies are weaker against the strengthening developed nations like the $, £, Euro and Yen.

Financial experts believe that these “emerging” countries have the ability to reward normal (if higher risk) investment. Investors constantly seek out businesses that have already established themselves but where the risk / reward ratio is different from the more developed areas. This is the search for wider niches where improved financial rewards can be found.

Investors in such emerging markets do not normally consider the social good of that investment – investment managers are charged with having to return a competitive return to their investors. The “quality” of the investment considers risk and volatility but not the social return. This (understandably) means that emerging economies overall may benefit when money is coming in but (as now) see key projects suffer when the money turns away – as there is no “buy-in” to the investment beyond return on investment. Investors can move quickly back to their safer zones.

Impact Investing

Over the past few years, the finance world (possibly after government badgering) and in its constant search for investment opportunities has built a signpost towards the social quality of investment. It is called Impact Investing and its intentions are notable enough for those such as Sir Ronald Cohen (chair of the G8 Social Impact Investment Taskforce and one of the top venture capitalists of our age) to shout about the potential benefits and opportunities – as he did in his recent Mansion House speech.

Impact investing is an attempt to link financial investment with “social returns”: building non-financial returns into investment criteria so that not only quantity and normal qualitative issues such as risk are taken into account in making decisions but so that a variety of social benefits (less poverty, more jobs for local people, better services) are developed – the typical social return for organisations that have a double bottom line.

In evaluation terms. it provides the investment community’s equivalent of the “cost-benefit analysis” of the 1970’s that was predicated on government (local and national) expenditure and was an accounting tool for evaluating non-financial outcomes and providing a financial outcome to them (outcomes that recent flooding problems in the UK may well have seen exacerbated by as a result of cost-benefit “rules” made hurdles by the UK Treasury).

Impact Investment has emerged as a potential move by the investors to invest in areas that will not provide the highest quantitative return on investment. It may seem to resemble CSR – corporate social responsibility – made by companies but Impact Investment is driven by independent investors that are not trying to offset externalities caused by their businesses. The investment is seen as totally different to donations or companies doing good things (like fundraising efforts by staff) – the typical form of investor involvement in charitable ventures as a return on investment is required.

The Evolution of Impact Investment

The tradition of philanthropic “giving” goes back to before the 19th Century – a period of great wealth for some sections of society that fostered the desire in some to give back some of their wealth to society. In Victorian England, the wealthy would see it as their duty to provide funds for the poor and many trusts and foundations originated in this period. As Government began (mainly after World War One) to encroach on charity territory, philanthropists (already complaining of high taxation) saw it progressively as a government responsibility to look after the worse off in society. This was a natural outcome of the welfare state – where government expenditure grew to around 40% of GDP or more and progressive taxation became the norm in developed economies.

The wealthy have had to develop their own ideas about the part they can play in the so-called “Third Sector” that remains – and which remains a critical part of society – their niche – and (perhaps) especially outside of the original philanthropists’ countries of origin. In the globally connected world of the 21st Century, we see a mirror on the nation state of the 19th Century – instead of each country being split into the well-off and the rest, now it can be seen on a global scale.

Bill Gates is a good example of the modern philanthropist – using his wealth through the Gates Foundation to make real change in the developing world in disease control particularly. This is mainly via the traditional use of donations (on a grand scale) using expertise learned in business to effect change that government-led, top-down schemes or traditional aid money has not accomplished outside of disaster situations.

More recently, as Sir Ronald Cohen voiced in his Mansion House speech, investment is now being applied to social welfare schemes where a financial return is envisaged. This is not a new phenomenon but is now, according to Sir Ronald, the coming investment mechanism for change. As Venture Capital was to business start-ups, so Impact Investment is touted to provide radical change where a social element is involved. This is a move into a new niche – combining, it is said, answers to investors’ search for new opportunities with social benefits.

The Global Impact Investing Network, an organization based in New York outlines four, central aspects of Impact Investment which are:

  • ·      Intentionality – the explicit investment, part of which is for social gain;
  • ·      Investment with return expectations;
  • ·      Range of return expectations;
  • ·      Impact Measurement.

The Impact Investment Evolutionary Niche

The mix of public and private sector undertakings, which followed social democratic principles in so many developed nations after the end of World War II, have seen stresses since the 1980’s – especially as a result of the Reagan / Thatcher period and the libertarian form of market economics that followers of Hayek would pursue. The Keynesian revolution fell out of favour as the mandate to minimize taxation and let the free market do the work came to be the norm – particularly in the English-speaking world. This reversed the tacit agreement that Keynesian economics had formed at the macroeconomic level, whereby government would manage economies to iron out excesses – particularly to offset major downturns or market bubbles. The impact of the change on the micro-economic side was that direct taxation was now reduced and that had to lead to reduced spending and more emphasis on people resolving their own problems.

The financial system melt-down of 2007/8 has exacerbated the problem. In the UK and elsewhere where government debt is deemed to be high there have been major cutbacks. driven by research such as the Reinhart and Rogoff paper which culminated in their book “This Time is Different”. Recently, much research has offered an alternative outcome and  an IMF paper “Debt and Growth: Is there a Magic Thresshold?” seems to refute the evidence. Such cutbacks have severed an implicit bargain with the less well-off and threaten spending on international development (although the UK has maintained its 0.7% of GDP annual promise many other countries have not kept up to their Millennium development goal promises).

Additionally, questions persist about the value of top-down international aid (except for disaster aid). Those like William Easterly (author of “White Man’s Burden” and his new book “The Tyranny of Experts”) have emboldened philanthropists like Bill Gates to enter the social marketplace directly.

This mix of government pull-out on the one hand and social conscience of the wealthy on the other seems like a return to the 19th Century social balance – where government tended towards the minimalist. Hobsbaum in his “Age of Extremes” called this government through “brakes rather than engines”. In this situation, the social requirements that are not likely to be rectified by government intervention grow substantially and require intervention from elsewhere. The environment has changed significantly and, as huge wealth has been generated by the top 1% of society, it has to have outlets for investment.

The New Impact Investment Opportunity

In the 19th Century, wealthy philanthropists set up charities for various reasons. The two most obvious were (1) a view that society should benefit from their wealth (2) a view that by helping others, they could form a better, wealthier society that would entrench the status quo and lead to less dissonance in society.

Up to 1914, this view prevailed but after WWI and the terrors of the slump in the 1930’s, poverty overtook the ability of the wealthy or government to cope. Dissonance was the norm and led, eventually, via fascism and WWII to the Keynesian revolution that was finally allowed to develop.

If we are now back into a position of similarity with the 19th Century, albeit at a much higher GDP level in the developed world, we are also a more global society so that extreme poverty, lack of medical assistance and social deprivation across the world are now closer to us than before and more intertwined with our well-being.

From the second half of the 20th Century onwards, large companies have begun to understand the need to be sustainable and have felt the pressure from customer requirements that tend towards the ethics of the product / service and those behind it. This has led to the development of a substantial focus on CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) as referred to above. Many large companies have now entrenched the notion of CSR but it remains for most an exogenous criteria rather than an intrinsic and internalised desire or part of the corporate vision or mission. Social good is rarely part of  corporate vision beyond customer care. Harvard Business School still questions the notion in its new course, for example –  “Private Sector, Public Good – what role, if any, does business have in creating social good?”

This question has been asked for many years and the fact that it is still being asked attests to the fact that most companies believe that they are tasked to maximize shareholder returns – hopefully, in the longer term but not always. Social factors remain as “externalities” despite the work of organisations such as TEEB  and its work on natural capital to make companies aware of the burden they can place on society. Publicly traded companies do not receive credit for lower share prices just as bankers asking for lower bonuses for the social good they create. This is a natural outcome of the environment that exists within a market economy focused as it is on goods and services – not public goods or social need.

However, vast wealth has accumulated to individuals in and of the financial sector (and other business sectors) and that sector has been notoriously reticent about social good or direct involvement in social enterprise. CSR within the financial sector is a very low priority (although exceptions do exist, charity fundraising and giving in general form a tiny percentage of sector profitability). The financial sector now has the role of society’s corporate enemy number 1 after the sub-prime generated disaster of recent years. So, while it is clear that many well-meaning philanthropists would enter into social (or impact) investing (as many already provide donations with no financial return expectations whatsoever) it remains unclear why the financial sector (e.g. venture capital companies) should consider lower financial returns offset by some social returns as acceptable – which is the premise that most assume in impact investment.

The answer to this quesion is that, in reality, returns are being generated that are similar to those available elsewhere and it is pretty clear that returns are sought that equate to other forms of investment.

The vacuum in the economic environment provided in part by government not wishing to be involved as much in social activities plus a more widespread belief that private enterprise can achieve more than government is providing the opportunity for venture capital to move quickly into the space provided.

Sir Ronald Cohen was one of the first to see the opportunity. Bridges Ventures was set up by him in 2002 and operates as follows according to its website:

Bridges Ventures is a specialist fund manager, dedicated to using an impact-driven investment approach to create superior returns for both investors and society at-large. We believe that market forces and entrepreneurship can be harnessed to do well by doing good.” and its provides ample evidence of its success.

A recent (“Fall 2013”) study in the Stanford Social Innovation Review by Paul Brest of Stanford Law School and Kelly Born of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has shown no lack of desire on the part of impact investors to enter into such investments, but mainly on the basis that they will pick up normal returns on their investment.

While it is clear in many cases that social benefits do occur from such active investment, the ability of such investments to return full amounts is as a result of “I see something that you don’t see” according to David Chen on Equilibrium Capital – as quoted in the Stanford article. This suggests that, for the investor, impact investing is about pushing into new territories but using different knowledge to access good returns on investment.

What is particularly interesting is that the investment community is now willing to invest in such social programmes / projects because it sees, in the main, the opportunity to gain good returns. The investors gain access to the opportunities through social entrepreneurs or charities that uncover them in the same way that venture capitalists uncover pure market-related opportunities that are presented to the venture capital firms.

The Stanford article shows the “frictions” in the market that investors have to overcome (in order to make their returns) as follows:

  • Imperfect information. Investors at large may not know about particular opportunities—especially enterprises in developing nations or in low-income areas in developed nations—let alone have reliable information about their risks and expected returns.
  • Skepticism about achieving both financial returns and social impact. Investors at large may be unjustifiably skeptical that enterprises that are promoted as producing social or environmental value are likely to yield market-rate returns.
  • Inflexible institutional practices. Institutional investors may use heuristics that simplify decision making but that exclude potential impact investments, which, for example, may require more flexibility than the fund’s practices permit.
  • Small deal size. The typical impact investment is often smaller than similar private equity or venture capital investments, but the minimum threshold of due diligence and other transaction costs can render the investment financially unattractive regardless of its social merits.
  • Limited exit strategies. In many developing economies, markets are insufficiently developed to provide reliable options for investors to exit their investment in a reasonable time.
  • Governance problems. Developing nations may have inadequate governance and legal regimes, creating uncertainties about property rights, contract enforcement, and bribery. Navigating such regimes may require on-the-ground expertise or personal connections that are not readily available to investors at large.

These may or may not be specific to social enterprises but it is not sure they are, overall, of a higher risk than other business opportunities. They are different. Having been provided with the opportunities, the assessment mechanisms then will evaluate those opportunities taking into account the “frictions” (including those above) in order to assess the returns and risks – much as would be done in a neutral impact (or more “normal”) investment.

The Reality of Impact Investing

Investing in social enterprises is not new but the emergence of a sophisticated push into social investments by the financial community through impact investing has created a degree of publicity and resulted in an industry with $40bn invested according to a paper recently presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos  – an amount which is growing rapidly (although still a tiny fraction of the trillions invested by the financial sector).

Within the social impact sector, traditional, donation-led financing may gradually move aside as investments with a financial return move in – although the main benefit will be through impact investment taking up the slack that top-down government funding  would have provided and maybe into areas not originally considered or under-funded. It can certainly be argued that such investments (in organisations such as Grameen Bank for micro-financing) seek to reap full returns while providing social benefits as well – even if the social benefits are actively pursued from the outset. The Stanford article suggests that no impact investment is such unless it has an “active” approach from the outset to providing real social returns over and above the financial ones and over and above what would have occurred without the investment. This impact is hard to uncover and measurement is not yet sufficiently in place and does not rule out the imperative of good financial returns (which are quantifiable).

One key question is whether impact investment is anything more than normal investment but with opportunities revealed by a new set of entrepreneurs – the social entrepreneurs – and with a new appetite and understanding for the risks inherent in this new sector. This appetite is emboldened as more of these ventures produce decent returns, as management of the “frictions” noted above are found to be possible and where the investment helps provide such as the “outstanding investment returns by delivering essential services to disconnected communities underserved by global networks.” as found by organisations like Elevar Equity quoted here).

With governments more likely to stand aside and open up spaces for investors, charities and social entrepreneurs have to seek out new financing and are doing so. The availability of serious amounts of investment is real and whether or not these are new and whether or not the investors care too much about whether the social impact is real or not, it has been shown that money is available but that (outside of the traditional donations market and outside of individual and foundation / trust philanthropists who, like a Bill Gates, wants to “do good”) most impact investment will be looking for good financial returns from this new, “friction”-filled investment area – where investment opportunities are brought to the investors by the newer group of entrepreneurs – social entrepreneurs.

This is a nascent environment but it is clear that the investment community is now working with a new form of social entrepreneur that find the prospects and is beginning to acclimatize itself to the specific risks (or “frictions”) that characterize the new marketplace in order to generate good financial returns. It is a marketplace that is being “sold” on the premise that “social returns” + “financial returns” = normal returns. It can be argued that the only element of the returns to be calculated (financial) is not necessarily lower than in other areas and that social returns are just over and above them. Nonetheless, the market is now available and social entrepreneurs have a growing opportunity to take advantage.

“But on the view of each species constantly trying to increase in number, with natural selection always ready to adapt the slowly varying descendants of each to any unoccupied or ill-occupied place in nature, these facts cease to be strange, or perhaps might even have been anticipated.” – Charles Darwin (1859), On the Origin of Species

Advertisements

The G8 at Enniskillen – No Hospitality to Tax Dodgers

Spendthrifts and tax dodgers

Six years on from the bank-induced recession, governments in the G8 are in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland to consider problems that they have failed to solve since the invention of taxation. While not as old as Enniskillen’s oldest building, built by Hugh “the hospitable” Maguire (who died in 1428), it is high time serious politicians acted.

Large sovereign deficits (spendthrifts pre-2007 and financial system saviours post-2007) and the inability of Finance Ministers to take more tax from their citizens has caused some nations to focus their attention after hundreds of years on the anomalies of the corporate tax system. This system enables companies (tax dodgers) to shift their tax burden offshore – away from where they make their money – through transfer prices, royalties and the like to places where the tax burden shrinks to almost nothing.

Margaret Hodge (the chair of the UK Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee – PAC) has pursued a fierce campaign against large companies that have, in her view, not paid their due corporate taxes in the UK.

The HMRC (the UK’s tax collectors) have, for many years, decided to be “pragmatic” and reach deals with those same companies on the basis that tax law is insufficient to compel the larger companies to pay reasonable rates of taxation – and the companies have more and better (and better paid) tax lawyers and accountants than the HMRC could dream of.

The PAC has not accused companies of illegality but has stated often that they should pay tax where they earn profits and has cast doubt on the companies’ honesty and morality. Google claims its sales take place in low tax / tax haven Ireland despite the reality of closing the deals in England – as the PAC has claimed and has brought forth witnesses who have testified to this.

What the debate between public and private sectors have shown is clear (to most of us). It is that corporate taxation is very hard to collect currently and that companies believe they are duty bound to reduce their tax to the minimum possible. For there is no social heart in a company – it is not really a person (even if it is granted that status in law), it has to meet the demands of the legal system and its shareholders (while ensuring its customers are satisfied on the way).

Tax-dodging Companies Have No Afterlife

There is a misinterpretation that great companies can find a soul but we should understand that, while they are all made up of real people, companies (especially large ones) take on a life of their own and are propelled by the dynamics of corporatism. A company knows that it has but one existence – there are no stories of “good” companies going to heaven.

Companies that pursue good CSR (corporate social responsibility) do often have good people working for them but the CSR is there because civil society (which includes a lot of customers – real people) demands it. Sustainability is best developed with a good understanding of the society around the company. This means understanding social responsibility where it is seen to be legally needed or where it will benefit the company in the medium term.

This rarely stretches to paying more tax than is needed. For every Starbucks (frightened by bad publicity to throw money in the direction of HMRC) there are 1,000 Googles and Amazons and Apples. Tax is not for sale and paying tax not required by law does not gain a company angel’s wings.

The Spendthrifts’ dilemma

However, since 2007, there have arisen massive deficits in many sovereign nations’ coffers. Suddenly, there is a need to fill those cavernous holes and the substantial drift in the share of income from individual wage earners to high net worth individuals and companies (companies don’t have a vote – outside of the city of London and there are not that many rich people – even if they control most of the wealth) means that the attention of government has shifted in times of recession.

Angel Gurria, Secretary General of the OECD, said recently that taxing the “man on the street” wasn’t economically desirable or even politically possible, so for many finance ministers the only option was “to cut, cut, cut more, rather than have a proper balance between revenue and the expense”.

He said this while overseeing the signing by more countries of automatic exchange of tax information – Austria, Switzerland and Singapore coming to the table.

However, other than austerity, which is now causing huge unemployment in countries such as Greece and Spain, the only target is corporate. This may be a turning point after hundreds of years – a Clause 4 moment – or it may be just rhetoric.

Spendthrifts chasing tax-dodgers – Tax Havens and Beneficial Ownership

Linking this to the G8 and David Cameron is obvious. Companies are able to avoid tax if they can somehow show that their profits are made outside of the higher tax areas. This can only be done if there are places with very low taxation that will accommodate them – these are the tax havens. Nicholas Shaxson’s excellent book “Treasure Islands” tells the story of these tax havens extremely well and also the appalling impact that they have on the poorest countries of the world.

Developing nations are rife with corruption and the corrupt are big users of tax havens – really, they are laundering their money.  Today’s Sunday Times article on the use of Latvians as front Directors for companies operating scams tells this story.

This is possible because of the secrecy that exists in most jurisdictions. If there was transparency and the only issue was lower taxation, then we would have a real competitive environment. Unfortunately, that is not the situation – although it is changing quietly with projects like the one above. If transparency becomes the norm, then the corrupt and criminal (whether they are terrorists or drug barons) will have far fewer places to go. There is no better place to learn about beneficial ownership than at Global Witness – which has driven this issue from the start – see their “Idiot’s Guide to Money Laundering.” It’s so easy anyone can do it – trouble is, most are!

This is why transparency is so critical and why politicians are attempting to use transparency to open up tax havens – at last – and the end to ownership secrecy.

Once there is transparency, then the next step is to determine where profits are legitimately made. This means that the policing of royalties and transfer pricing cannot be at the whim of large corporates but there has to be international agreements that specify what is allowable. International tax laws should not predetermine rates of tax, but double taxation should not equate to zero taxation – it has to mean that tax is payable in the countries where the business is done.

The final requirement is to ensure that beneficial owners of companies are known by the taxation authorities. Why companies and trusts are allowed to be secret is beyond the comprehension of almost all of us. As Richard Murphy (Tax Research UK) has written, over 500,000 companies in the UK are struck off each year. Around a third never file accounts.  He estimates that the tax lost as a result could be upwards of £16bn per year from companies that trade but do not file accounts or tax returns.

That is in the UK alone.

Can’t Spend, can’t stop spending

Can’t tax, can’t stop taxing

 

The dilemma of western Governments that find austerity too much, too soon and who (outside of those in serious trouble like Greece, Cyprus and Spain) are unwilling to torment their citizens with mass unemployment and soup kitchens is great. This means that the deficiencies that have been all too apparent in corporate taxation for so long are seen as the final option. The 2007 banking-induced calamity has made such huge financial contortions in countries such as the UK and the USA that even the precious not-to-be-disturbed tax havens and secrecy laws are under pressure.

The G8, chaired by the UK and in Northern Ireland (rather than one of the many UK protectorates that operate as tax havens), does provide an opportunity to generate support for the ending of the nonsense that the current corporate tax system provides. Gleneagles (eight years ago) was all about international development and led to significant and positive change (even if not all the promises have been fulfilled). The same pressure and openness about tax havens and secrecy in international finance could lead to more sensible and pragmatic tax systems and, eventually (if pursued vigorously) to far less exporting of illicit funds from developing nations (such funds leave developing countries at a faster rate than aid money is put in). At least $50bn a year is lost to developing nations in Africa alone every year.

This is a great time for Enniskillen – ancient home of Hugh the Hospitable – to be remembered for its lack of hospitality to tax dodgers.

 

The Business of Sport

                                                                       

The Question: as the gap between elite sport and its fans grows ever-wider, should those who pay for the sport (its fans) expect to have a say, should the communities on which the clubs and associations depend be better treated by those at the top and, if so, how?

Many of us have a love affair with sport – many play it directly and millions watch sport and maybe actively or passively support a team. Sport underpins many of our lives – it makes us fit and provides excitement, motivations, inspiration, team-building and social cohesion.

As the 20th Century went on, professional sport was progressively distanced from the amateur and the fan by its takeover by business interests – initially, the local businessman but later, by international business.

This provides a distancing of ownership from the mass of people that generate the income in an industry that is unlike so many others: where the customers are so involved, often so passionate, often players.

This means that sports authorities (and especially businesses that own the major teams) have a responsibility that is different to other businesses or business organisations. They have a duty of care to their customers around the “game” and how it is played. This opens up the issue of how individuals (or groups of individuals) who are customers can be “played” because of their commitment and what can be done to protect them. There may be lessons for all industries from the examples available.

Business Governance and Sport

Governance in sport impacts many beyond the teams themselves. That is why Deloittes show their involvement in all the following areas :

  • licensing systems for sporting competitions;
  • cost control mechanisms;
  • transparency measures and anti-money laundering;
  • events and/or membership application and selection processes;
  • sporting calendar matters (national and international);
  • regulations in respect of players’ agents;
  • measures to protect the integrity of the competition;
  • independence of clubs – ownership rules and other means of influence;
  • player transfer rules; and
  • ‘football creditors’ rules.

Governance is much wider than this in regard to sport and its impact in  and on society can be shown by three articles in The Independent (Saturday, 18th May) that highlight the difficult interconnections between business and sport (here, England football teams) and the intertwining connection between sport and the community.

·      The first by Chris McGrath attempts to show the worst side (Manchester City’s owners sacking of Roberto Mancini) and the best side (the Portland Timbers superb response to a charity – Make a Wish – for help for an eight-year-old cancer victim).

·      The second (in the business section – Jim Armitage) reflects on the Arsenal blog that shows the support of Doan Nguyen Duc (a wealthy timber merchant from Viet Nam) for Arsenal and questions whether they should take the support (financial and otherwise) from someone that Global Witness (an anti-corruption NGO) says was responsible for much of Viet Nam’s destruction of its forests and the displacement of many people that lived there. He is said to have made the comment: “I think natural resources are limited, and I need to take them before they’re gone”.

·      The third (also in the business section by Simon Read) reports on how Sheffield Wednesday turned down a deal with a “payday lender” which it refuses to name but was said to have offered 25% more than anyone else.

The three articles (I assume “coincidentally” in the same newspaper on the same day) highlight the mistrust of journalists for the businesses behind the clubs but also for the type of ethical questions that the clubs have to consider at this time.  “This time” means at a time when business and the community is undergoing strains and, in football, when the position of a team as part of the community it serves is strained to the full. In the USA, big teams moves State; in the UK, only smaller teams like Wimbledon (now Milton Keynes based) have tried it as fan bases are crucial to the business (even if more revenue than ever is via TV and international support).

Whose business is sport?

It is a long time since amateur sport ruled anywhere (the top tennis players rarely joined the professional circuit until well into the 1960’s; athletics was similar and rugby became professional in the UK in the late 1990’s). In the UK, football was severely structured with maximum wages well into the 1960’s as well and even if clubs were limited liability companies, they were owned by local families who kept them private.

In those days of amateurism, sport was for the community. Players were not paid much (outside the USA) and players were close to those they played in front of, living in the same streets and drinking in the same pubs and clubs.

In the USA, football, basketball and baseball (and ice hockey and the rest) became business pursuits earlier. Europe and the rest of the world (and most sports) have followed. It is now the normal way of life that business had taken over professional sport to the financial benefit of players and (mainly through TV) the income for sport worldwide is now massive.

Whether the Olympics, football (through FIFA and its major tournaments such as the Champions League and World Cup), the Superbowl, 20:20 cricket in India and so many more, sport now generates massive income through its massive fan base and the ability of TV to generate that income. So, there has been a rapid shift by large businesses and entrepreneurs to own sports team and have influence over the organisations that manage sports – such as Formula 1 or baseball or football (of all types).

This income has been generated through the opportunity that sports presents over almost anything else – to transmit excitement visually and aurally through radio, TV and the internet to a mass audience that is entranced by the game played – with an excitement and passion rarely found elsewhere. This mass appeal is now available and reach-able worldwide and with that appeal comes massive advertising revenue (and, with the internet) growth is coming faster.

So, sport (something we all get involved in to some extent) has both appeal as participants and observers (although to a greater extent than anything else, the two are mixed with sport). This appeal is then converted into income for companies that are able to transmit sport into the home – via pay per view, rents and advertising.

Sky in the UK has become a dominant operator (although BT are now incurring on their territory).

Owners of sports teams (especially in football in Europe and all the major sports in the USA) benefit wherever they operate.

The Duty of Sport

Because sport is not just another product and because the “customer” is so involved, there is a chance that sport offers something different. The players are celebrities and, in modern culture, people that youngsters look up to (rightly or wrongly). More people know David Beckham than any politician or scientist – it is a (maybe unfortunate) fact.

This means that businesses involved in sport (and that means the sports clubs and managing organisations themselves) have opportunities to involve themselves with society that is not there for other businesses. Not only that, but they have a duty because of the nature of their business and for their own protection.

This duty can be said to be to serve the community that provides them with the income they derive. This is not about BSkyB or BT doing some CSR. They are the middlemen in all this – the means of transmission. No, this means the sports entities themselves working out how much their “community” means to them and how much they should give back to that community. It can be done.

A good example is Arsenal Football Club that has set up the Arsenal Foundation and, in turn, developed real partnerships with Save the Children (its international charity) and Willow Foundation (a national charity). I have an interest here in that I am Chief Executive of Willow Foundation – which provides special days for seriously ill young adults.

Arsenal is an international business these days but has worked out that it also has local roots and its Foundation works in the local community and with Willow on a national scale. With Save the Children, it operates internationally. At its recent Annual Ball, Arsenal Foundation raised over £300,000. That maybe small compared to the Football Club’s annual revenue of £226 million in 2011, but it is a start. Moreover, the time and effort of the club and those within it (like Arsene Wenger – an Ambassador of the Foundation) are worth a lot.

However, the balance sheet is patchy on sport’s involvement with their support base and through them with the community. There is no real driving force that connects through the massive distance that exists between them. While the same distance exists between many businesses and their customers (banking is a very real example, but the same can be said of energy companies and so many others), there is a very real difference in sport that is both for bad and for good.

The Sporting Difference  – and Opportunity

The business sector has been buffeted by recession and, in such a recession, business leaders and their companies are vulnerable to attack from other sections of society. So, the tax avoiders like Apple, Google, Starbucks and others (all under attack by newly-zealous politicians in the UK and the USA along with the tax havens that they employ) are not just seeing their potential tax bills increase. Their relationship with customers is also under attack that can lead to reduced sales. This may not be the case for Google (now so big and dominant that it may no longer care) but others may well feel the pain.

In the sporting arena, it is easy to see a large array of problems: FIFA and football corruption, allegations on racism across the world, NFL alleged behind-the-scenes collusion on player wages (the NFL is a not-for-profit – which may surprise) and the general disbelief that ordinary fans have with the salaries that players “earn”.

Football in the UK is an example of the changes that have taken place in the last forty years where salaries of £100,000 per week are not unusual (Gareth Bale is negotiating £200,000 a week at Tottenham) and the difference between that and the average wage in the UK of around £25,000 per year is stark.

Taking all this together, sport (as epitomized by the 2012 Olympic Games in London) can be magnificent but clubs and sports organisations have to take notice of the communities upon which they rely. The piecemeal CSR and charitable work should be as competitive as their sport rather than resisted or an afterthought – or done just for publicity.

Sport is a collective experience – whether in teams or the association between individual sports stars and their fans. This provides an opportunity to seal the gap between the stars and the fans that small groups of supporters on their own can never fill.

The link between the stars / clubs / associations (the elite) and the fans / amateur groups has always been a struggle. It is for each club to decide how it deals with the community upon which it depends. Some ensure the players get into the community – at Tottenham Hotspur in London, Ledley King and Jermaine Defoe are well-known for the time they spend with young, inner-City kids and clubs. Other set up Foundations and / or develop relationships with charities (usually connected in some way to the work they are doing or the area they are in).

Heading for Rollerball?

Deloittes produce an annual report on the top football teams – with the last issued in January of 2013.

No one (that I can see) assesses annually the contribution that sport and teams make in society or the potential for that contribution – let alone any analysis on the work individual clubs perform.

Business seems now to be the only driver – which is a Rollerball outlook on sport – a dystopian future that may well be here already. Made in 1975, the film showed the world in 2018 as corporate-controlled where sport was the controller – like 1984 with sport instead of three political blocs fighting each other.

So the Question: as the gap between elite sport and its fans grows ever-wider, should those who pay for the sport (its fans) expect to have a say, should the communities on which the clubs and associations depend be better treated by those at the top and, if so, how?

Bodies such as Sport England, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the major associations of all the sports and clubs discuss the wide range of benefits and opportunities that exist. Because it is hard to measure the impact of sport and the part played by big corporations in sport (it is not something easy to measure like GDP), the real impact of large corporations on communities and people in the UK is not assessed.

Like the problems of measuring the benefit of a woodland or a river, our focus on numbers (and scores) misses the potential for large sports organisations to do good – and the result is that newspapers see the Rollerball potential.

The Government has set up a Natural Capital Committee to measure the value of natural capital in the UK. It  just published its first Annual Report

Because of its enormous impact on society and people, one response may be to set up an equivalent in the area of Sport – to assess the benefits and problems associated with the business of sport and the benefits to society, people and communities in ensuring that Sport is well managed for the benefit of as many as possible and that Businesses in Sport gives back to society sufficient of the benefits it derives from those communities and show how they take those communities into account. We would then get to see an Annual Report on the state of sport in the UK.

Do Companies Exist???

David Cameron is an astute politician and he understands that, at last, there is a popular movement for equity in taxation. This equity includes companies paying a reasonable share of profits. Ian Birrell in The Independent sees this as the start of a movement but this is a campaign that people like Richard Murphy have waged for many years.

True, much of the publicity around his work and that of organisations like the Tax Justice Network and Action Aid have revolved around tax and the developing world. This is where multinationals – especially in the energy and mining sectors – have often connived with governments with a corrupt result that siphoned off hundreds of billions of dollars from the state into the pockets of individuals, elite groups and corporates.

The Dodd-Frank Act – and its focus on country-by-country reporting of tax in such areas – was aimed at opening up governments and companies payments.

However, the taxation effects of tax havens, low tax jurisdictions and multinationals with expertise in moving their tax affairs wherever they want has also created the opportunity for such multinationals to pay if they want, where they want. Organisations like the Institute of Directors, whose members are mainly smaller companies with less multinational options, have recently come out in favour of zero corporate tax rates – on the basis that it is people that should pay tax, not companies.

What’s a Company for?

There are many who believe that a company should not pay taxes – that the market economy needs to ensure that companies are free (within the law) to grow and prosper and that their assumption of human qualities (they are seen as entities under the law) is a fiction. It is people that need to be taxed – not companies and the IoD, for example, in its paper “How to get rid of Corporation Tax” (written following a similar paper from the 2020 Tax Commission) strongly advocates the elimination of all corporation tax as the company is a mere conduit for shareholders, staff etc who should pay all the tax on disbursements from the company.

This begs the question about the essential qualities of a company in a market economy – what is it that makes a company different from an individual – why shouldn’t it pay tax?

Limited liability provides individuals with the scope to take risks. It is a formula from which individuals seeking to build a business can bring in investment knowing that the only requirement to repay (if managing a legally proper business) is limited to the value of the shares as well as any loans taken out. It is limited liability that was fully developed in the Netherlands in1602 when stock was tradable on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange that gave the push to enterprise in Europe. Taken up by the British, it heralded the industrial revolution.

Joint stock companies (having limited liability) were the original, defining force that differentiated companies from individuals pursuing business opportunities. Now, most business is done with limited liability.  Governments have lost track of the ability of such joint stock companies to register in whatever jurisdiction they want and to appoint Directors that have nothing to do with the business – often purely there to hide ownership.

Clearly, companies have a huge presence. Their marketing ability is as the company – not the individuals that are behind it. Advertising and brand management is aimed at providing the public with an identifiable face. A company relies on its customers seeing it as a tangible and identifiable organization with which customers can do business. It has a legal basis (and can take action as such and be actioned against as a result) as well as a moral requirement – the advent of CSR is merely a tangible outcome of the way that companies are seen to be real and impact the environment and society in many ways.

If it quacks…..

We all know that companies are the centre of entrepreneurship and product and service creativity. In a market economy, the rise of joint stock corporations have worked to de-risk investments so that competition has been developed and economic growth maintained since the early 1800’s. This growth has developed some enormous corporations in businesses as wide as energy, food, utilities, construction, defence and aerospace, pharmaceuticals and beyond. Every area of opportunity is mined by the evolution of companies across the globe. Governments have progressively sought to assist business but, under pressure from society (people) laws have been passed which inhibit them to what society believes are proper norms.

These laws include health and safety and employment laws but also include tax laws. As a result, companies make decisions on where to locate – although this often includes where it needs to sell as much as where it can find skilled staff or suppliers.

Apart from rogue traders, set up with the need to hide its affairs within foreign jurisdictions and behind false Directors, many MNC’s (multinational corporations) are able to move their profits around by manipulation of licensing and other features. Rather than pay tax on profits in the areas in which they make the money, accountants can provide companies with boltholes in which the rates of tax are very low.

The IoD and others believe that companies are not real – that Governments should give up on them and rely on the payments they make to people on which tax should be paid.

The question arises: if a company is a distinct entity in law; if it can be held responsible for its impact on the environment, its impact on people, its duty of care to customers – why, oh why, should it not pay taxes? Why should society not look to some repayment from the company itself – which benefits hugely from joint stock activities as well and huge benefits that are introduced for companies such in terms of infrastructure, government regulations, and a myriad of other incentives – rather than (in this instance only) having to seek tax purely from receivers of income from companies. Taxing companies is, in principle, correct as it is the company that derives the income from a location.

If tax is to be separated, then the long-term outcome for companies would be potentially the loss of other benefits (such as joint-stock arrangements) as the legal distinction becomes blurred. Not just the thin end of the wedge – but a potentially disastrous change.

Companies have to play their part

If companies exist in law as distinct entities, which they do worldwide, then it is reasonable that they face up to the reasonable demands of the society in which they operate. Company law, however, may set up companies as distinct but the reality is that the company has no moral code except that which society imposes. People have moral codes, companies (which are organisations of people) do not. CSR is reactive to society, not pro-active and while companies have a need to become sustainable (in terms not just of resources but sustainable in terms of the relationship with its customers and the societies in which they operate) it is extremely rare for them to lead – to take such societal risks.

This is true in most areas. Health and safety leaders in companies were years ahead of the legal changes in places such as California but were reacting, quite properly, to likely long-term changes. Those that did so were ahead of the game when laws changed in areas such as environmental restrictions.

This reactive ability (changing as the environment changes in an evolutionary way) makes the best companies resilient – sustainable. It shows they are real entities as much of society as any other organizational form or the individuals that self-organise around them and within them. Companies are a part of society and should contribute to society as a key part of it. This means that opting out of a crucial element of the system – taxation – is ludicrous on grounds of the companies’ relationship with society – whether that opting out is legal or not.

The dangers are obvious. The crack in society would be potentially dramatic – companies would be seen to have no fiscal contract with society. This may well be the case for MNC’s now but the public backlash is starting to inhibit their ability to prosper in this environment. Companies that properly pay their tax are now selling this proposition to their customers – companies such as J Sainsbury whose pride in paying proper company tax in the UK is seen in distinct contrast to those MNC’s like Amazon, Starbucks and similar. The latter is threatening to disentangle itself from future investment in the UK if David Cameron (and his “time to smell the coffee remarks”) persists in trying to get them to pay tax where they trade rather than using licensing and royalties to hid their true profits.

Companies are a key part of society. They have to act as such and not just contribute to society solely through CSR documents. They have to be seen to contribute and tax is one of the most obvious manifestations of that contribution.

Let tax be paid where the trade is made

Let’s end the notion that companies should not pay corporation tax and let’s get on to the next step of the ladder – working out how to ensure that royalties, tax havens, tax schemes, fake Directors and the like are no longer tolerated and that tax is paid where the trade is made.

 

See: Do Companies Exist – Part II

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.

 

 

 

 

Business and bribery – globally speaking

A couple of weeks ago, I posted “Everyone should be allowed to bribe”

https://jeffkaye.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/everyone-should-be-allowed-to-bribe/

and received a lot of good feedback. From business people, from NGO’s, from those in countries where the bribes take place and impact the most, it is clear that this is a major concern.

The NGOs’ position is understood – bribery is bad, it is illegal in most countries, it does irreparable harm, it distorts the market, and it creates poverty in those countries, which cannot afford to exacerbate intolerable economic conditions.

For those in those countries where bribery takes place, the impact is felt acutely. It is not just that money is wasted on bribes that could be spent elsewhere; it is not just that money is wasted on products and services that are bought only because of the bribes. Just as critical is the fact that the country may see bribery and corruption as the norm – nothing is done without a bribe – it is a mafia-type culture where favours and reward for favours are the norm. This is a distortion of the market that leads to those in certain positions benefitting and the rest (those outside the inner circles) are deprived of economic well being (maybe no housing or food) and deprived of being part of a moral centre to their lives.

The Business of Bribery

For large businesses operating out of countries with well-developed legal structures, bribery and corruption is now officially not on the agenda – reputational losses are, in the main, far too severe to allow a short-term gain to be allowed if through bribery. The problems that Wall-Mart is suffering from alleged facilitation payments in Mexico is a case in point – the legal hassles, the continuing publicity, the constant press all drain the company and, overall, question the economic sense of the payments (which may well not be illegal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – FCPA).

For large organisations operating in corruption-endemic parts of the world, the situation is fraught with danger. A business operating in the UK or USA, for example, would be acting illegally if bribing overseas. Yet, there are many instances where it appears that business takes a calculated risk – using money to influence decisions that (even if found out and prosecuted) may well represent a reasonable return on investment overall. These companies may well be in mining or construction, or defence – industries prone to bribery opportunities where the dangers are continuous.

For small to medium-size enterprises (SME’s), the situation is hugely risky. Many complain that meeting the requirements of the UK’s Bribery Act are severe and highly costly. Lawyers require large fees for sifting through the processes of any business to “ensure” that “Adequate Procedures” are in place. Many have gone too far and maybe spending too much in ensuring no bribery takes place.

For others, there remains the feeling that bribery is not a bad thing – it is the norm, they say, for doing business in certain places and British business (or American or whoever) should not be crowded out by parsimonious governments led by the nose by the NGO’s.

For these businesses, they are competing for the survival of the company (in their minds) – why does the UK not “get it” – that “we are not on a level playing field with the Chinese and others who allow their firms to do what they want when overseas?” Arguing that it is unethical produces a wry smile – and a call to deal in the real world where business is tough and economic conditions tougher. A business does whatever it needs to do.

From 19th Century business ethics to 21st Century Globalisation

A parallel with the business of bribery was the rise of industry in the 19th Century and how the demand for health and safety procedures were crowded out and resisted by businesses that saw this as an affront to their rights to do business. The laws allowed child labour and working conditions modeled on workhouses – prison-like conditions.

In 1833, the UK introduced a law that ruled that:

  • Children under nine could not be employed in textile factories.
  • Children aged nine to thirteen could work a maximum of nine hours per day and 48 hours per week.
  • Young persons aged thirteen to eighteen could work a maximum of 12 hours per day and 69 hours per week.
  • Night work for children and young persons was not permitted.
  • Children were to attend school.
  • Four independent factory inspectors were to be appointed.

This was the beginning of a movement that business owners felt would wreck their businesses.

We can now look back on the waves of pressure in both directions that pushed for better working conditions on one side and the status quo on the other.

But, the world changed – developing countries realized that to be prosperous meant developing the so-called middle class and that all parts of society had to be covered – not enslaved by appalling conditions. While risks still persist in many industries in the UK and other developed nations, the focus has moved.

Globalisation has meant that we now source so much of our goods from overseas and this means that Asia, for example (mainly China) now represents our supply base just as the under-9’s did before 1833. Our natural resources (from which the British Empire rose up) are still derived from many of those countries, which were plundered in the 19th Century.

Yet, the norms that we require in our own countries are not the norms in our supplier base – even if we obtain the benefits. When a UK retailer is discovered using child labour in one of its overseas suppliers, there is an outcry and their reputation suffers. Our consumerism does not, in the main, take precedence over what we see as basic ethical norms – which have changed in the last 180 years.

So, bribery and corruption is no different. Early 19th Century England was a place where bribery was endemic. We have, for the most part, cleaned up our act at home. This ethical state was not transposed to the work we do overseas for many years – in 2001, the costs of overseas bribes remained tax deductible in the UK. Now, the situation has changed – the ethical state has changed in law – if not yet in practice. Globalisation does not mean we should hide our eyes from the rest of the world – we are now all part of the same economy (just as the textile workers and their 9 year-old children were in 1833).

Taking business beyond bribery

The laws are in place but business (operating under difficult economic conditions) and business people feel under pressure. Passing a law does not mean that it becomes easy to deal with it. There are a number of changes that we need to see made.

  1. SME’s feel under pressure because they have been scared by the Adequate Procedures requirement in the UK – which means that individual Directors are unlikely to be prosecuted even if someone in their firm is guilty of bribery if there exist processes, which mean that the bribery charge is shown to focus on a rogue element. Lawyers and others have made the most of this – firms are hit by high charges if their risk assessments show them vulnerable. The answers lie in common sense (like all business decisions) but also, for many who think themselves vulnerable, for Chambers of Commerce and other business organisations (CBI, IOD) to go to their aid by working with government and NGO’s (like Transparency International) to educate wherever possible.

I have myself chaired conferences in the Bribery Act – I hesitate to state the percentage of companies that have been to such conferences, but I bet it is a low one.

2. Working for a US corporation for many years, I had to sign-off every three months that I was unaware of any bribery going on in my business. We should have the same in the UK – this should be done for all companies audited, where a document should be signed off every year by the Board. For those companies that are too small for an audit, there should be a statement that is sent in with the Balance Sheet to this effect.

3. For companies that are subject to bribery requests and / or intimidation, there has to be somewhere to go just like the Embassy if an individual is imperiled. Every embassy should have a commercial attaché or equivalent that is trained in the Bribery Act and knows how to deal with the issue. This entails pressure on host governments as well as alerting the issue to UK Authorities – as it is anti-competitive and will hurt British firms in the short-term. It also requires links between the Embassies and industry groups to channel information and to act on it.

4. The Governments that are signed up to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention have to seriously and continuously pressure those countries that aren’t to enter into a world wide anti-bribery agreement – it should be a WTO requirement for trade that countries make their firms bribe-free and that supplier nations work towards bribe-free regimes. This should also include those regimes that have surpassed bribery and where small groups have taken over the resources completely. Angola comes to mind (Sonangol controls the energy industry and is vitally owned by the governing clique) but South Sudan (one of the poorest nations on earth) is bemoaning the loss of $4 billion through corruption in its oil sector.

Business Ethics good for Business

Business has to deal with many challenges – and external challenges can be the hardest. I have seen businesses in aerospace and defence positively transformed because of the adoption of good ethical practices. CSR has focused many large companies on to going beyond what is legally required to what is right. That usually makes for good business as consumers are far more “savvy” and can change their buying habits very quickly.

For small businesses (maybe part of a supply chain where the end-consumer is not in sight), it is just as important. Large companies are responsible for their supply chain, too under the Bribery Act. There is not much escape.

The Bribery Act took 200 years to get into Law – it is very unlikely to be overturned. The 21st Century world is one economy – each nation and group of nations are linked by trade flows, supply and demand, financial flows, people flows. Just like CO2 emissions, one country impacts another. Bribery may be an unseen crime – it is a crime nonetheless, but, like in regard to health and safety (and child labour laws) we move on.

“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.