The Left Economic Advisory Panel have reminded me that in The Courageous State there is a riposte to Mr Cameron to 'responsible business'. It's a 20-point charter setting out that "a good business":
- Makes clear who it is so people know who they are dealing with
- Makes clear who runs it
- Makes clear who owns it
- Makes clear the rules by which it is managed
- Puts its accounts on public record if it enjoys limited liability, and does so wherever it is incorporated whether required to by law or not
- Seeks to comply with all regulation that applies to it
- Seeks to pay the right amount of tax due on the profits it makes in the place where they are really earned and at the time they really arise
- Seeks to pay a living wage or more to all who work for it
- Recognises trade union rights
- Operates a fair pay policy so that the pay differential between the highest and lowest paid in the company cannot exceed an agreed ratio that should never exceed twenty
- Makes fair pension provision for all employees
- Does not discriminate between employers on the basis of race, nationality, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, and similar such issues
- Does not abuse the environment
- Has a clear code of ethics that it publishes and is seen to uphold
- Is transparent in its dealings with customers
- Seeks at all times to minimise risk to those it deals with and takes all steps to ensure they know what those risks are
- Accepts responsibility for its failings and remedies them
- Works in partnership with its suppliers and does not abuse them
- Advertises responsibly
- Creates and supplies products meeting real human need
I don't expect Cameron to be writing this charter into corporate law any time soon. But he should.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
what on earth does point 20 mean – does an iphone meet a real human need, does a ferrari, does a rolex……………
You’re clearly not sure
I think you answered your own question
enlighten me then – you want Cameron to introduce these into corporate law apparently – so are you outlawing iphone production in the UK?
No
I’d just impose variable tax rates
And why not?
I was going to ask the same question that Steve asked. Judging by your response, I presume you would therefore like to ban all these things and bring criminal proceedings against directors of such companies?
You called for this to be put on the statute book – do you seriously want businesses like cars,watches, etc to go before the courts and have judges ban them?
You really are incredibly stupid at times Richard.
It was a Code of Conduct – note
And yes these could carry penalties – like higher tax rates for breaches
Cigarrettes and alcohol already do
Really not so stupid at all
But I suspect you enjoyed the ad hominem
Steve, good point.
Whilst there are obvious cases of ‘needs’ (food, water etc – the bottom rung of Maslow’s heirarchy of needs) and ‘wants which are not needs’ (luxury goods etc), there will be a lot of grey areas. I would have thought with all their functions (phone, maps, access to news etc) Iphones and similar products were now a necessity, but of course ony a few short years ago we all survived well enough without them, so maybe not.
But if the test of a need is ‘we could live without them’ then a whole lot of things would not pass the test. Societies have survived throughout history (and still do today) without electricity, the motor vehicle, beer, lipstick and opera.
Again, a lot of grey area and subjectivity involved, which makes it a problematic subject matter for a code of conduct, let alone anything with legal implications.
So it’s subjective and someone will have to make a decision? Is that your problem?
Now let’s mention the fact that the world is finite and we’re depleting it, far too fast
Does that change your opinion? Or not?
If not, why not?
There are a lot of young people who would like to know
“So it’s subjective and someone will have to make a decision? Is that your problem?”
Yes, indeed someone will have to make a decision. The question is: who?
Now one thing I know for sure: I have no idea what is a ‘want’ (versus a ‘need’) in the household of Richard Murphy and Mrs Murphy. Even if I were elected to your local Council or became an MP, I wouldn’t have much further idea. None.
The people in the best position to know this are the adults in the Murphy household. And those adults may come to a different conclusion to that of my family. Why should it be a ‘one size fits all’?
Or are you saying you are happy for politicians (e.g. David Cameron and George Osborne for at least until 2015, maybe quite a bit longer) to make that decision? What happens if they classify something as a want that you regard as a need? Or vice versa?
We’ve had this discussion before. If it were up to me, arts would be considered a want rather than a need. You think the opposite. Who (as between us) gets to impose his will on the other?
I’d prefer to classify everything as a ‘want’ so you can peacefully do your thing, and I can do mine, and we will get along fine.
Having said that, this item 20 is the only thing in your list I disagree with — the rest is OK.
And I disagree
It’s the little mater of externalities that you ignore
Which is why I am happy for government to decide via a ballot box
But libertarians were never that keen on democracy
“It’s the little mater of externalities that you ignore”
What have extenalities go to do whether something is a need or a want?
Are you saying that something ceases to be a ‘need’ if it produces externalities? If so, you would be eliminating food as a ‘need’ — the supply of it on the scale our population needs each day surely produces plenty of externalities.
Simultaneously, there are plenty of wants that are clearly not needs but the externalities are negligible. Think of local personal services you might find in your local directory — beauticians for example.
Secondly, can you please define what is meant by ‘I am happy…’ Your constant disagreement with the decisions of the current goverment suggests you are not happy to leave these things to the goverment.
Respectfully, this is the usual libertarian pedantry which has the specific aim of going nowhere
That may be your aim
But I am going somewhere and I’m not wasting time on those going nowhere
I’m in favour of point No.7
When do you think Tesco, Marks and Spencer, WH Smith, Next etc in Douglas, Isle of Man, will start paying us tax on the profits they make here? They free-ride on all the benefits of the Isle of Man infrastructure and make huge profits without paying any taxes.
Ah, but to tax them you’d also have to tax all those tax haven structures
You’re between the devil and the deep blue here
This is great, but can we also have something like: “recognizes that loyal employees lead a social and family existence outside the workplace and seeks to accommodate this within reason and in mutual good faith.”
Like that
RM – i think that a number of the suggestions are valid, its just a shame that point 20 undermines the whole thing, which other readers of the blog who have commented seem to agree with.
i note there is no mention yet on the blog of the revelation that Ken Livingston has used a personal service company for his activities…………….
Well we’ll disagree on point 20 – I think t essential
And as for Ken – damn it – I was in the Telegraph article. What do you want?
apologies I didnt notice your contribution to the article. dosent look great for Ken as there seem to have been a number of follow up articles on the subject
I do not show political bias on this issue, and Gilligan, in fairness, put in my recommendations for change
Higher taxes on iphones and all other items deemed “non-essential”? That’s a popular political programme, if ever I saw one.
Sure as heck will be when resources are very obviously running out
And remember we already tax those things we consider unacceptable or profligate
Take cars, for example…..