It was interesting to hear Louise Nicholls of Marks & Spencer talking about sustainable business in Ely Cathedral last night.
The discussion focused on the environment, the clear need for reform and the nature of inequality and how it threatens M & S's goals. But there was an issue that she did not discuss despite many mentions of business and its role in society. That issue was tax.
The reality is that you cannot be green, sustainable or community focussed unless your money is on the table. Community programmes are all well and good (and I am not for a moment saying they should stop) but it's tax that drives real change in society.
Plastic was discussed, for example. It was said that this is an issue beyond anyone by themselves to change. I agree. But the demand for change is not from business. It is from communities, activists and responsible media who are leading politics and business in the right direction. And it is only government acting on the determination of these people that will change the regulation that will really change plastic use and that requires more government activity, which in time may require more tax to be paid (even allowing for MMT).
Business can be responsible. But if it wants to talk responsibility it has to talk tax. I look forward to the day when I hear it doing so.
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:
The current capitalist business model is no longer sustainable – both in terms of social justice and environmental responsibility. This applies especially to so-called ‘publicly-owned ‘ companies traded on stock markets. Within their remit to shareholders there are pragmatic – and maybe even legal? – limits as to what they can do that might limit their financial profitability.
For the most part ‘social responsibility’ is simply a PR exercise. You only have to look at the glossy annual reports to see how they ‘market’ their results. Of course, depending on their political agenda, all governments impose a varying range of legal restrictions and obligations that companies must theoretically comply with, but only at the minimum level they can get away with (viz. tax & minimum wage). The larger the company the bigger the problem for government (e.g. donors, core voters, personal interests, lobbyists etc.). The financial sector is especially difficult to regulate in the public’s interest, isn’t it?
While maximising tax collection is a major contributory factor in achieving improved standards of living for everyone, I suggest the fundamental issue of ownership is the key to opening the door to a new & better way of ‘doing business’ in the 21st century – a model that is more democratic, more equitable, more accountable, more transparent, more suited to meeting the environmental challenges … and so on. Much good work is being done by the TUC, LSE, and others, but thus far it’s not been translated into government policy. Well, it wouldn’t be under the Tories, would it? Even doubtful under a Labour administration. In the US Richard Wolff seems to be gaining a wider audience (https://www.socialeurope.eu/democracy-work-cure-capitalism).
Marx and Engels were generally correct in their predictions; just a bit out timing-wise. Work still in progress!