It is Davos week. It's quite reasonable to wonder who cares any more. After all, many global leaders will skip this year, so big are the crises at home.
And let's be clear that the crises are partly Davos made. Let me use the example of a man who got Davos wrong: David Cameron. In 2013 he went to Davos not just as UK prime minister but also as chair of the G8 and announced he would tackle corporate tax abuse.
He did, of course, do this for the wrong reasons. Margaret Hodge had just grabbed the initiative on the issue in the UK with the Google, Amazon and Starbucks hearings. And Cameron wanted the domestic agenda back. What he eventually promised that June in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland was country-by-country reporting to directly benefit developing countries to tackle the issue.
But he did not deliver. The UK was party to the OECD downgrading the promise to country-by-country reporting for tax reporting only, done in private and with many developing countries being excluded from benefit. The absurd paradox of supposed tax transparency being delivered in secret disclosures was the outcome of Cameron's intervention.
And so the anger of populism continues.
And Davos continues to wonder what's hitting it.
And I am still not sure they really get it.
The reality is the world is not anti-capitalist. But it most certainly is anti-exploitation. And people feel they are being exploited. And they resent it. Hence the anger. And the rightful indignation at the failure of politicians and business to deliver on promises.
What can be done? I suggest there are three things.
First, companies have to be seen to run for the benefit of all stakeholders. I define them as:
- Investors and their advisers
- The trading community
- Employees and their advisers
- Regulators
- Tax authorities
- Civil society
I stress the civil society aspect: this is where business meets the environment, and much else.
Second financial reporting has to be reformed so that it does report to all these stakeholders. This is the duty of the twenty-first century corporation. If it forgets that it should forego its licence to operate. It survives by the grace of those who give it the chance to do so, to whom it is beholden as a result.
And third? It has to deliver against these expectations, of course. This will require a considerable change of ethos.
But none of this will happen unless the corporations of the world, from largest to smallest, transform their reporting.
That reporting must always be in public, without exception.
And it must always reflect stakeholder interests, although this will change with scale.
And that reporting must reflect the reality of what the company must be transformed to do - which is to compliantly meet the needs of society.
This is possible. But Davos did not and still does not appreciate it. David Cameron's failure is the evidence of that.
The lesson has to be learned.
The alternatives are very much worse for business.
In which case a reporting revolution needs to start right now. There is remarkably little time available to business to prove its worth. The reporting revolution that will let it do so has got to begin.
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:
Have you assumed the planet and its environment in Item 6 – Civil Society? Might I suggest that it’s worthy of its own identifiable category? Some industries are more damaging environmentally than others and, given the gravity of the global warming issue, the world’s people have a right to see how and by which corporations the problems are being driven.
I have assumed that is where they sit – yes
I think this by far the biggest civil society demand
This point is about reporting is a good one but Joel Bakan was right. You can’t resolve those problems unless you do away with the limited liability corporation as we know it. They are all power and no responsibility and as long as that remains the case they will continue doing what they do.
http://thecorporation.com/film/book
I disagree
As the tax haven and transfer pricing expert your response surprises me a little.
The transnational corporation is inherently at odds with civil society
https://www.alliancemagazine.org/blog/rise-global-business-shrinking-civil-society-space-suggests-civicus-report/
It has become a cancer on democracy through lobbying, donations and the revolving-door of technocrats that move out of the corporations into the government and out of the govt into the corporations.
http://highpaycentre.org/blog/the-revolving-door-how-business-has-colonised-uk-politics
The worst of this syndrome is not always in its obvious outcomes. It also becomes manifest in largely hidden abominations like the ISDS provisions within trade treaties.
https://corporateeurope.org/international-trade/2014/04/still-not-loving-isds-10-reasons-oppose-investors-super-rights-eu-trade
There is an interesting list here showing that 69 of the world’s 100 largest economic entities are corporations not nations. I needn’t explain the power implications of that.
https://www.accountancydaily.co/corporations-dominate-worlds-top-100-economic-entities
In the ensuing decades the choice will become more pressing: either we, as the civil society, get rid of the corporation or it will get rid of us. None of this contradicts what you are saying. You are addressing immediate concerns with a readily viable proposal which is well and good. My suggestion is more of a long-term objective but it is one that seeks to address the cause rather than the symptoms.
I disagree with ‘inherently’
I simply do not agree that this has to be the case
Some are
But I believe that change is possible
Why else have I campaigned?
Smeth,
Thanks, point noted and yes, I more or less do. This site is quite good though for what it does.