One year on from the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the anger among ordinary citizens about the behaviour of the bankers and their lack of accountability is palpable, reflected in politicians’ rhetoric.
President Obama goes to New York and lays it on the line. After trillions of dollars, pounds and euros have been spent bailing out the banks, behaviour has to change. No more bailouts, he says. The trouble is, one year on we seem no nearer the fundamental changes needed to stop it all happening again – some sort of new Glass-Steagal, in shorthand.
So the twin themes of holding corporations to account and governments playing a constructive role are uppermost in the mind as we go to print. With this edition, the annual flood of companies’ responsibility and sustainability reports comes to a head, and they are one vehicle for such a debate.
A striking feature from this year’s crop is the extent to which corporations are making big bold commitments to cut their carbon and water footprints dramatically – half in 10 years or fewer. SABMiller and Johnson Matthey spring to mind as examples.
These are welcome contributions to the huge global challenges, though let’s not forget that over the same time period, they are hoping their businesses will grow to twice the size. In absolute terms that’s only a stand-still impact.
Meanwhile all the evidence in the run up to Copenhagen shows the vital imperative of achieving 50% to 80% absolute reductions in carbon emissions over the next few decades, and the near impossibility of getting anywhere near that given current technologies and ways of working.
Where these two themes come together – businesses trying to act but limited in what they alone can do and governments needing action on behalf of their citizens but not knowing how – is in business accepting a proper accountability and governments prepared to work in partnership.
Truly the need to move the CSR debate into a wholly more constructive space is more urgent than ever. One side cheering a return to business-as-usual bonuses while the other simply wants to punish bankers is neither productive nor proportionate to the challenge at hand.
COMMENTS