Ethical Businesses: Making a Profit while Making a Difference
Even though Businesses are owned by
their shareholders and thus responsible for giving them a return on investment,
the focus of a businesses must not become turning a profit, but how they are
going to make a difference in the world.
Once a business begins to focus on their profits and losses, they lose
focus on the things that make the business unique and valuable and this opens
the door to anything that turns a profit being OK. Unethical behavior can then destroy the
business. When a company is staying
focused on its purpose, the profits will be incidental.
When I was growing up in the 1970’s
in upstate NY, I remember having to stay up until after 11:00 PM to talk on the
phone with my Grandfather in California where for him it was 2:00 AM. This was because ATT, “The Phone Company,”
had a monopoly on phone service and the daytime rates were prohibitively
expensive. Also, the telecommunications
technology in use was basically the same as it was forty years prior; ATT had
controlled all telecommunications development through its subsidiary, Bell
Labs. A small company in the Midwest
named Microwave Communications Inc. (MCI),
which had sold two way radios to truckers, wanted to provide better and
less expensive long distance service so they challenged ATT’s monopoly. (Saint
2001) This led to the breakup of ATT and today my wife calls her mother in Ft
Worth TX, from San Jose CA several times a day and we just pay a flat rate of
$24.00 a month using our internet phone connection.
Through a series of mergers and
acquisitions, MCI became WorldCom. Today, if you were to ask the average person
on the street, they probably wouldn’t identify WorldCom as the company that took the stand that allows them to
call their friends and family at any time, inexpensively. They wouldn’t necessarily
discuss how MCI’s challenge of ATT resulted in the technology that allows them
to chat on their MySpace Page being available. They would likely be thinking about
the accounting scandal that brought down MCI
/ WorldCom and how it’s CEO, Bernie Ebbers, is now in jail for twenty five
years for fraud
In the early part of the
20th century, a young architect, when challenged, handled things
quite differently. This architect had
lost his young daughter to illness. The
architect, like many a parent who had lost a child, had blamed himself because
in an economic downturn he had lost his job and was forced to move his family
into sub-standard housing without proper heating. The architect had decided to kill himself. With nothing left to lose, at the last
minute, R. Buckminster Fuller chose instead to conduct an experiment to see how
much of a difference one human being could make to humanity. By the time he did pass away of natural
causes in 1983, in his late 80s, Fuller has made several archeological,
scientific and sociological breakthroughs such as The Geodesic Dome, “Bucky
Balls”, The Dymaxian Map, The Dymaxian car, The Hunger Project, The World Game
Institute along with several
others. He was also the person who had
coined the terms synergy and Spaceship Earth. In 1980, Fuller had stated, “For the first time in history it is now
possible to take care of everybody at a higher standard of living than any have
ever known. Only ten years ago the 'more with less' technology reached the
point where this could be done. All humanity now has the option of becoming
enduringly successful." (Fuller, 1980 www.worldtrans.org)
Business can be a path to all humanity
becoming highly successful. Business is essentially a form of communication. I communicate to the clerk at Subway $5.00
and the clerk communicates back a foot long sub sandwich, there is an exchange of
ideas at a certain level. The more
people who walk into Subway for this exchange, the more profits Subway
makes. They then open more stores, hire
more people who go out and buy stuff at other places. As markets expand and ethical company will
expand. As it expands, it brings more
and more into the fold until it is all encompassing.
Thriving businesses also keep us at
peace. If there were a Subway in Baghdad
and Baghdad gets bombed and 20,000 people are killed, that is a potential loss
to Subway of 20,000 foot long sub sandwiches.
If each of those people would have just had one foot long sandwich a
week that would be a loss to Subway of $5,000,000 a year, not to mention that
the survivors would probably be a bit more afraid to go to the mall and
thus buy even less. It is bad for business to have a war and kill
off potential clients so expanding ethical businesses will also make war
obsolete. It is necessary however, in an
ethical company is for someone to have a vision. One example of the power of a vision is that
of Professor Fredrick Terman and two of his students.
In the 1930’s, The Santa Clara Valley
in Northern California was world renowned for its fruit orchards. It was called, The Valley of the Heart’s Delight, as a large variety of fruits
grew there. Stanford Professor Fredrick
Terman had a different vision. Terman
was a professor in what was then known as Radio
Phenomenon, now a part of electronics engineering. Terman knew that for this field to grow into its
potential, The Engineering Department of Stanford would need to surround itself
with electronics businesses to have a symbiotic relationship. He convinced two of his students, William
Hewlett and David Packard to start a business in Palo Alto California, in
Stanford University’s back yard. Hewlett
Packard was started in the garage of the house that Packard had rented. Today, when you fly over the Santa Clara
Valley, instead of seeing miles and miles of orchards you see miles and miles
of office buildings filled with electronics companies and there is a sign in
front of the old HP Garage on Addison Street in Palo Alto, California that
reads, “Birthplace of the Silicon Valley.” (1996, Packard)
David Packard of Hewlett Packard also
had his own vision. Packard wanted to
change the way Management / Employee relationships worked. In the
day that HP had started most businesses were highly hierarchical in there
structure. While working as an intern at
General Electric in their Quality Assurance Department, Packard had found that
when he was out on the floor in dialog with the engineers, there were fewer
defects in the end product. “That was a
very important lesson for me,” Packard wrote, “that personal communication was
often necessary to back up written communication.” (Packard, 1995 p 27) Over
the next several decades, Packard had developed this discovery into what he had
called The HP Way. The HP Way is a
very flat management structure of self managed work units. Hewett and Packard
placed their trust on their employees.
During Packard’s tenure at HP, they only had one layoff in the
1950’s. When he passed away in 1996,
employees at HP held impromptu memorials for him in the lunch rooms. After
Packard passed away the problems began at HP.
The management team put the HP Way on the shelf and concentrated on the
bottom line was brought in to run the company.
They merged with another company over the objections of the Hewlett and
Packard families causing thousands around the world, from both companies to get
laid off. When that action did not prove
successful, another management team was brought in. The chairperson and some board members were
indicted for spying on other board members.
Hewlett’s and Packard’s live were
about how a business can make a difference in the world just by the way they do
business. A business’s products, of course, can also
make a difference. When Bill Gates was a
boy, he would run home from school every day to watch the TV Show, Star Trek. He was fascinated that Captain Kirk had a
computer on his desk and decided that it would be his life’s work to put a
computer on the every desk in the world.
Several years later, when he saw that the Altair 8080 was on the market, he started Microsoft (Gates 1995) and
now there is a computer on almost every desk most of which run some Microsoft
Software and Gates is one of the top two wealthiest people in the world.
Young Gates set his goal to put a computer
on every desk. He did not set the goal
to be the richest person on earth. That
was just incidental and as a result of being generally successful in attaining his
goal. He wanted to do something that
would improve the lives of others; he wanted to make a difference in the world
and for that he was rewarded by having a profitable company. The question to ask therefore is not what can I do to make money? But rather, how can I make a difference in the world with my business or product? Gates then took the money he earned and
started using the money itself to make a difference. Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Gates is using his profits to
work on improving education in the United States and also ending Aids in
Africa. In 2005, Bill and Melinda Gates
shared the Time Person of the Year with
Bono from the band, U2
Fifteen years ago, CVS Pharmacy was a
small chain of drugstores in New England.
During that time, its CEO Tom Ryan has “transformed the company . . .
into a national health care colossus.” (Boyle 2009 pp 42 -49) It is now one of the top twenty biggest
companies in America. Ryan did not build
CVS by concentrating on profit but rather his goal, “to help transform America’s
expensive and often ineffective health care system.” (Boyle 2009 pp 42-49) This
is something beyond Ryan himself, this is what drives Ryan and while working on
transforming the health care system he has incidentally built CVS in to the
giant that it is today.
Of course, having a greater good in
mind for a business and wanting it to make a difference in the world is not a
guarantee for success. Today, in 2009 we
are at the brink of one of the greatest financial meltdowns to have ever
happened. Several banks have closed or
have been rescued by the federal government, who has committed close to a
trillion dollars to save the banking industry.
One of the causes of this was that the banks were making loans to people
who were not necessarily qualified. It
is easy for us to think that the banks did this because they are all run by
lazy goniffs but some of these
bankers actually wanted to make a difference by allowing the little guy to
achieve the American Dream and own their own home. They figured that with the price of Real
Estate continuing to sky-rocket, the overloaded home owners would be able to
refinance in a couple of years and even get some cash out of their homes. After all, real estate prices couldn’t
possibly ever go down because the population was going up so the laws of
business and economics could just be ignored
Yes, it is a good thing when businesses
work on attaining their purpose and also work to make the world a better place
but they have to remember that to achieve their goals they would need to follow
the principles of business and economics just as a scientist or engineer must
follow the laws of Physics and Chemistry.
If NASA had decided to ignore the Law of Gravity they would have never put
someone on the moon. If Grace Hopper
would have ignored the laws of binary arithmetic and symbolic logic, she would
have never invented the FORTRAN computer language. By ignoring the laws of business and
economics the banking industry has put itself into serious danger.
Indeed, while businesses are owned by their shareholders and thus are responsible for giving them a return on investment, businesses have a responsibility to not only turn a profit for their shareholders, but to also "turn a profit" for their communities and for humanity. They do this by having a purpose and by staying focused on their purpose. It is also important that a business follow all of the laws of society and nature. Once a business leader becomes focused on profits and losses instead of its purpose, the door will become open to stupid, unethical behavior and failure.
For more info: www.tamianassociates.com
References
Boyle, M (2009, Feb 23) CVS Dispensing Drugs and Health Reform. Business Week, 42-45
Gates, B ( 1995 ) The Road Ahead New York, Viking
Packard, D (1995) The HP Way New York, Harper Collins
Saint, S (2001, September 2nd) Telecoms Rise and Fall. ATT’s Breakup Created an Opportunity
for Telecommunications, The Colorado Springs Gazette, Retrieved February 28, 2009
from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20010902/ai_n9991845
Shockley-Zalabak (2009) Fundamentals of Organizational Communication San Francisco
Pearson


Jeff, like many of your articles, I find myself compelled to take a lot of time in responding. However, in this particular case, in the best rabbinic tradition, I'm going to respond with two questions:
1) In examining your own biases (e.g. your "already-always listening"), do you think you would be able to relate to matters of business, commerce and economics in anything other than an objectivist framework? (elaboration below)
2) I am in full agreement that businesses ought to have a goal of making a difference in the world, and that the profit margin corrupts. What mechanism do you suggest to make sure that happens? (Previously you'd suggested trade associations, BBB's, ratings agencies and other non-governmental agencies. I assert these are inadequate -- or they certainly have been, including almost all of the companies you've mentioned above.)
Follow-up to #1 -- Your objectivist view makes you do weird tap-dancing around larger, more obvious truths. For instance, you suggest that the banking crisis of 2008 was fueled by well-intentioned bankers making feel-good loans to marginal borrowers so they could get a piece of the American dream -- all while glossing over the fact that massive deregulation, initiated under Reagan and dealt the death-blow with Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999, led to a financial free-for-all environment where "making a difference in the world" took a back seat -- hell, it wasn't even on the same BUS -- to the profit motive. But since your opposition to government regulation is practically in your DNA, you can't actually say that the gov't would be a beneficial player in this situation. So the question to you is really: Could you even consider that the central tenet of objectivism is fundamentally flawed? (I know, big question...)
Oh, and to answer the broader question (I couldn't resist) that your essay poses: It's called "incorporation" and "the corporate charter." And it's been weakened in the past five centuries to the point where it's been neutered. If you know the history of why most corporations are incorporated in Delaware, you're on your way.
Reply to this
Rabbi Alek,
1) Actually, this article has nothing to do with Objectivism. That being said, I have come to the conclusion that Objectivism has one flaw... It assumes that we are all super humans and will always do what is best. Perhaps some force is necessary. Right now, I am taking a "micro" approach, it doesn't have anything to do with "isms" but rather you and I ( and the other 6 billion people out there) living a fulfilled life.
2) We lost a great opportunity as to a mechanism. If the companies in question were allowed to have failed that would have proven such a deterrent that structures would have been put in place to prevent something like that from ever happening again, and yes part of that solution would have involved the government. The trillions that were spent on bailouts could have been used to handle the fall out.
As for your broader question, I need to do some research. Personally, I intend to incorporate in Wyoming or Nevada!
Reply to this
Shalom, Jeffrey!
I'm glad to hear you're seeing the necessity for "force" in managing economic interactions between humans; I was going to use the word "enforcement" in my previous post, but thought against it. But if you consider Man to be an economic actor in society (which I know you do, among other views), then Man needs to be able to act confidently in matters of commerce. That means contracts are honored, and that a purpose of gov't is to manage the enforcement of those contracts. By logical extension, that also means regulation. D'you think?
As for letting the big institutions fail: I think the jury's still out on that. There's new evidence every day that Goldman rigged the game in multiple ways to benefit from a situation they knew was fatally flawed, and real-life, prosecutable FRAUD is just around the corner. I still think the answer is going to be re-regulation; had these institutions failed, it's not like all their employees would have been chastened and would have retired to meek lives in retail or early retirement. These sharks would have been back in the water immediately, unchanged in character, re-aggregating capital to launch their next wave of duplicitous financial products. No, the answer is to put these fuckers in cages, and to inspect the bars of the cage every couple of months to make sure they're not escaping.
Did you happen to read the Greenwald article I linked to a couple of weeks ago? It explores where people such as you and I might have common ground in creating a new economic framework; if we can get past our different descriptors of what's happening, we could actually ally on the fact that we're getting screwed by the same bad actors.
Reply to this