No Trackbacks

Did I miss something?

The critique was devoid of analysis, more a grab bag of old news. Is it really the position that one should not call the largeset employer to account for its HR policies? That no moral critique can be advanced of a corporation? That seems particularly odd. Surely, in the context of asymmetrical employment relationships such as those found in a non-unionized shop like Wal-Mart, there is a place to call attention to the policies that disadvantage its workers. The corporation takes its place as part of a community and so as a participant is thereby open to critique from the same community.

Doing business does not remove you from critique, nor does critique necessarily mean any desire for boogey-man economic solutions (aka "socialism").

Moreover, since this letter, Wal-Mart has in fact taken up these very concerns the letter addressed -- concerns btw, that were also highlighted in the press. Formally, this was likely a result of market dynamics; shoppers (like me) who have more disposable income were shunning Wal-Mart. Why? because we had heard about these practices.

The voicing of concern creates the economic reality the corporation responds to. Because Voice (aka stakeholder concerns) can shape the social landscape for the corporation, it is of vital concern. Thus, the active role and visibility many corporations give to their community service and public relations efforts. Of course there are extremes, flakiness in this Voice, just as there are egregious violations of morality on the part of isolated companies.

Religious leaders should be speaking out against injustice, this is the call our faith has given us. When a MNC is acting against moral obligations, they should be called to answer.

This is a terrible article, as has been said already. It doesn’t tell anything new and skews the facts abotu what religious leaders are doing. They’re not trying to enact socialism, they’re not forcing anyone to do anything, they’re just voicing their concerns over immoral business practices.

You’re trying to make the MNCs look like victims when they’re the ones victimizing those who have no voice to speak for themselves. It takes those with a voice to speak for those without.

My government philosophy is juris naturalis or minarchism, I’m against government fooling around in the affairs of business and religion. But I am first and foremost a Christian who has obligatiosn to speak for the poor and the oppressed. If a company is acting in an unjust manner, they should be called to answer for it by people of faith. It has nothing to do with globalism, economics, or politics, it has to do with justice, mercy and faith.

I find the commentary quite balanced. Personally, I tend to be highly critical of big business treatment of employees, as a rule. Jabalayan gently reminds that the objective facts of each case may show that big business can do good things for people as much as small business can do bad. More importantly, he points out that work and business activity can be good for -- in fact essential -- for people’s development and , therefore, need not be demonized.

My own worry is that big business tend not to do good by their people by design but often by accident or only instrumentally towards profit. While we must be fair to those who do good we must be ever vigilant to point out that the risk of big business harming people because of its preoccupation with profit (often short term) is real and all Christians and people of good will should confront such situations squarely as they arise.

JBP,

Profits are important for any business to achieve sustainability. However, it cannot be an overriding preoccupation.

In a perfect information and lobby-free world, the promise of markets to give profits to only those who do things well would follow. The real world does not work this way. Thus, huge profits can be earned by companies who abuse workers (modern day sweatshops), sell poisonous products (cigarette companies), lie with their advertising, etc. Profits are not a positive proof that a business is well-run. Although I would concede that lack of profit is a fairly good indication that a business is not well-run.

The key is to achieve the profits AND to achieve humane treatment of employees.

While writting an interseting overview of the issue Jayabalan never directly attacks the problem. Very simply the issue is the concept of Capital and the return to capital.
Generally people in the religious community do not understand the importance of capital in increasing the living standards of people. The MNC can provide this capital to developing countries, but to accomplish this they must make a profit. My experience is that too many religious do not understand that increased living standards and profit are linked together.