Are business and ethics like water and oil?
I was once speaking to a person who has a very successful business profile. "Do you know what attitude towards life one should have to be a successful businessperson?"
I declared ignorance.
"Imagine you are on a boat full of illegal immigrants. They have nothing except the clothes on their backs. Something is floating in the sea. It looks like something of value. You are there, not because you are as needy as they are or you are one of them but for some accidental reason. You have to persuade yourself that you need that object in the sea more than those hungry, miserable individual do. You fight to get it. If you can do that, than you can become a successful businessman."
I was not interested.
I am sure that many people in business would protest at this description given by one of them. I am sure that many would say that they have a social conscience and that they do mix business with ethics. The average Maltese cynic would not agree. I think that there is a widespread belief that business and ethics do not mix. Business and ethics are, for many, like water and oil.
Is it like that? Should it be like that?
This week the Vatican organised a conference to discuss the subject. High-profile leaders from the manufacturing, industrial, banking and financial sectors including representatives from General Electric and Goldman Sachs, as well as Catholic experts in Catholic social teaching were handpicked for the conference. It was a multi- business, international and inter-religious conference. There was an attempt to reflect on principles commonly shared by many and which are also core to Catholic social teaching. Such principles include the principles of the centrality of the human person, subsidiarity, solidarity and the pursuit of the common good. During the conference there was also an attempt to marry principles and practice.
A profile of the business leader
The speech of Cardinal Bertone, the Vatican's Secretary of State, with its profile of the business leader was particularly interesting.
Bertone spelled out the difference between the business leader and the speculator.
He first gave the profile of the speculator.
"The speculator makes it his goal to maximize profit; for him, business is merely a means to an end, and that end is profit. For the speculator, building roads and establishing hospitals or schools is not the goal, but merely a means to the goal of maximum profit. It should be immediately clear that the speculator is not the model of business leader that the Church holds up as an agent and builder of the common good."
Then he gave the profile of the business leader.
"The business leader is first and foremost an innovator who generates and pursues projects: for him, for her, for them, business activity is never merely a means or a tool, but part of the goal itself. Logically, it is not possible to separate the activity from its goal, since business activity has intrinsic value. It has value in itself."
In Catholic social teaching "profit" is not a dirty word. However, it is not looked at as the ultimate justification of human entrepreneurial activity. Pope Benedict in his encyclical letter, Caritas in Veritate, says that "Charity in truth requires that shape and structure be given to those types of economic initiative which, without rejecting profit, aim at a higher goal than the mere logic of the exchange of equivalents, of profit as an end in itself" (No. 38). Catholic social teaching does not reject profit but aims at a higher goal than just profit. Bertone describes as "a great challenge" the task of balancing between these two goals.
Cardinal Bertone criticised those ethical theories concerned with business and social responsibility which propose the adoption of socially responsible practices primarily as a marketing device, "without any effect on relationships inside and outside the business itself, the destination of its profits, the demands of justice, worker participation, and so forth".
"Nowadays business leaders who want to take the Church's social teaching seriously will need to be more daring, not limiting themselves to socially responsible practices and/or acts of philanthropy (positive and meritorious though these may be), but striking out into new territories."
One of the examples he mentioned has to do with the administration of "common goods" such as water, energy sources, communities, the social and civic capital of peoples and cities. He said that the business sector has responsibility for the good administration of these common goods. The business sector cannot look at these common goods simply from the perspective of profit. "We need business leaders with a social conscience, leaders whose innovation, creativity and efficiency are driven by more than profit, leaders who see their work as part of a new social contract with the public and with civil society."
Structures besides conscience
Daniel K. Finn, professor of economics and theology at St. John's University in Collegeville, Minn., in his comments to Catholic News Service said that business leaders should not only talk about the efforts made by individuals but also about social and distributive justice and the wider issue of "the morality of the economy." Attention has to be paid to the larger structural injustices in today's economies.
According to Catholic News Service, Finn said there are four elements that need to be fulfilled for making a more moral economy: first is the moral behaviour of individuals and organizations, and second is the legal structure of markets, which cannot be allowed to be absolutely free and unregulated and must have legal limits to "prevent the worst abuses." Third, "the needs of all must be met," through employment and direct social assistance to those in need, he said. Lastly, "a vibrant civil society" is needed, where citizens come together in informal or formal groups like art associations or unions, to help improve different aspects of society, he said.
I think that the comments above are valid for our local situation as much as they are valid in other countries.
On being a priest
I was ordained a priest on June 19, 1977. Today is the anniversary of my ordination. I thank God for His great gift given to me, as we say during Mass "minghajr merti u minghajr ma jisthoqqli." Next week I will share with you my thoughts and feelings about these last 34 years of being a priest.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
27 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Arthur Soler
Jun 25th 2011, 00:28
@ Jessica DeBattista
Hi Jessica:
There have been a number of law suits against the FDA, Monsanto and Searle, and indeed against Pepsi Coke etc. regarding the safety of aspartame. As far as I know all have been unsuccessful...(unlike the many lawsuits against big tobacco companies.)
This article from a Harvard Law School student does a good job in explaining the various controversies regarding aspartame and all the other artificial sweeteners, including Splenda, saccharin, cyclamates etc.
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/816/Burnett_07.html
I do not know why there were no counter suits by the various companies that were defendants in the original suits. Whatever the reasons, the transparency of the aspartame issue (and other artificial sweeteners) was certainly there and received widespread press coverage for many years....with more still to come probably. The key questions, I think, are:
1) Whether the companies involved acted ethically, and
2) Whether the FDA reviewed all the available scientific data thoroughly before granting approval.
I believe the answer is "yes" to both questions, which is why aspartame is still on the market and why there have been no successful class action suits, as far as I know.
I cannot add anything more to this friendly debate, but hopefully we both got something out of it.
Arthur Soler
Jun 25th 2011, 00:23
@ Andy Farrugia:
Hi Andy:
Thanks for your comments.
I think that we are generally on the same page on this matter.
There is no doubt that governments could do a better job in drafting legislation that protects the rights and safety of consumers/customers, while at the same time ensuring that businesses have enough "freedom of movement" to grow and prosper. But we all know that achieving this fine balance is easier said than done.
The trading environment has become infinitely more complex especially since the rapid spread of globalization. So much of what we use and consume is often produced in other countries, often third world countries, where the regulatory "checks and balances" are woefully lacking. The proper control of this very long "supply chain" is immensely complex as you well imagine.
I share your sense of fairness and justice and I'd like to believe that most, but not all, CEO's of major Western corporations do too. Notable examples would be Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Steve Jobs. On the other side of the ledger is Bernie Madoff who singlehandedly destroyed the lives of countless people. Fortunately, there are more "good guys" than "bad guys" in the Western business environment, which is why we are wealthy, at least in a material sense.
Thanks for your contribution to this debate.
Arthur Soler
Jun 24th 2011, 19:23
@ Andy Farrugia:
Hi Andy:
Nobody in his right mind would suggest that businesses are perfect. As far as I know there is not one single man-made institution that is perfect.
I’m in agreement with you that “fat bonuses” for those executives that have ruined companies are nothing short of scandalous. Having said that, I’m not sure that I would generalize in condemning businesses that downsize, restructure, merge etc. In many cases, such actions have saved many companies from oblivion...as in the recent cases of General Motors and Chrysler. To be sure, a number of employees have lost their jobs, which is regrettable. However, it would have been even more regrettable if ALL employees had lost their jobs.
As a case in point, if Air Malta does not restructure and become a financially viable business, there is no doubt that all 1200 Air Malta employees will lose their jobs… not 600.
The reality in this tough world in which we live, is that there are always winners and losers. Successful companies create wealth, investments and jobs. Unsuccessful ones cause pain and suffering for many.
In aggregate however, I still stand by my position that it is commerce and businesses that have created the wealth that many of us in the West enjoy…and I also believe that most of these businesses conduct their commercial affairs ethically.
Mr Andy Farrugia
Jun 24th 2011, 20:11
To be sure, it seems to me that it is always those who are least to blame who end up having to pay the highest price, and they they are always "losers". I am not against the creation of wealth, investment and jobs; what i queried (in my typical abrasive manner) was your bald statement about "generally sensible checks and balances". I do believe that regulatory authorities should be more attentive and vigilant in ensuring that businesses function and thrive within recognised "territories"; within this framework, businesses should then have the freedom to operate and to generate wealth and long-term well-being. But these are just the thoughts of someone who is a layman in these matters, but who possesses a strong sense of fairness and justice.
Arthur Soler
Jun 24th 2011, 04:10
@ Jessica DeBattista
Hi Jessica:
Thank you for your comments re aspartame. I'm afraid that we may have to agree to disagree on this matter.
I can readily send you as many web links that support the safety of aspartame, as you have sent me that state otherwise.
It so happens that I have been associated with the Confectionery industry in both Canada and the USA for the better part of 30 years, so I am well aware of the controversies relating to Aspartame. Let me make the following points for your consideration...
1) Aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than NINETY COUNTRIES worldwide with FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut”. The weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe as a non-nutritive sweetener.
2) The FDA (Food and Drug Administration…..USA) is recognized a one of the best (if not the best) Food and Drug Regulatory Agencies in the world....and it gave Aspartame its approval. But, besides the FDA, another 90 countries also approved this artificial sweetener...and you can be sure that neither Monsanto (the manufacturer of Aspartame) not the FDA could have "bribed" 90 countries to approve this product for human consumption.
3) If Aspartame had been an unsafe ingredient, both the FDA and Monsanto would have had no choice but to withdraw it from sale. Otherwise, in this age of transparency, coupled with the intensely litigious culture in the USA, both parties would surely have been subject to multi-billion dollar class action law suits.
4) Aspartame is still in very wide use worldwide...it is in fact the artificial sweetener of choice for low calorie soft drinks and sugarless gum. The news media would "crucify" the FDA and Monsanto if Aspartame did indeed cause these alleged serious health problems.
In any event, this blog is not about Aspartame per se, but about Business ethics. I have acknowledged that there are many examples of unethical businesses (the tobacco industry for example). But with aspartame, I'm afraid you have picked the wrong example.
In aggregate, I am very much pro-business, and my own experience leads me to believe that in the Western world, the great majority of large businesses act ethically, within an environment of generally sensible regulatory "checks and balances".
Mr Andy Farrugia
Jun 24th 2011, 09:54
"In aggregate, I am very much pro-business, and my own experience leads me to believe that in the Western world, the great majority of large businesses act ethically, within an environment of generally sensible regulatory "checks and balances"."
Checks and balances? Bollocks, Mr Cadbury!
Arthur Soler
Jun 24th 2011, 13:59
@ Andy Farrugia
Care to expand on your "Bollocks" comment.?
Jessica Debattista
Jun 24th 2011, 14:38
@ Arthur soler: “If Aspartame had been an unsafe ingredient, both the FDA and Monsanto would have had no choice but to withdraw it from sale. Otherwise, in this age of transparency, coupled with the intensely litigious culture in the USA, both parties would surely have been subject to multi-billion dollar class action law suits.”
Well! I will not argue since I do not have your expertise, but one question: How come no "law suits” have been filed against all those who say otherwise? or is this in the true spirit of democracy - absolute freedom of expression?
Not likely!
Right?
Scaremongering can have very negative repercussions and I don't suppose FDA and Monsanto are likely to tolerate it.
For all I know there might have been lawsuits against these scaremongers. I will await your confirmation.
In the meantime we remain in the dark!
"Transparency"???
Mr Andy Farrugia
Jun 24th 2011, 16:54
@ Mr Arthur Soler
"Care to expand on your "Bollocks" comment.?"
Huh? Checks and balances? As in paying particularly privileged "fat cats" millions in bonuses for firing workers....ahem....sorry "downsizing, restructuring, mergers, take-overs", and other assorted doublespeak? As in big companies suddenly going bust and wiping out the savings and investments of common folk? As in contributing in a really big way to ruining the entire economic and social foundations of multiple countries? And this is not a question of waving "red flags", Mr Soler; indeed i am highly allergic to red flags and whatever they stand for.
Arthur Soler
Jun 22nd 2011, 21:31
I find it very difficult to understand, let alone accept, the generally negative attitudes that exist towards business. I would acknowledge that there are unethical businesses, but there are also countless ethical ones........as indeed, there are unethical and ethical people.
If one looks at the world with open eyes, it is not hard to realize that the countries (and their citizens) that are prospering are those that have recognized the value of commerce and within it, the fact that PROFIT is not a four letter word.
Indeed, businesses that are profitable generate wealth, drive investments, create jobs, stimulate innovation, and generally improve our quality of life. The reason we are able to communicate so freely via the internet, to use our mobile phones, to fly on a plane, to turn on a light switch, to get excellent medical care etc. is precisely because of the existence of businesses who saw the value of those technologies to consumers, while at the same time generating a profit for themselves and their shareholders.
The example quoted by Jessica DeBattista about Aspartame is frankly, rubbish. This link should clarify the truth about this artificial sweetener...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
Let me again state that there are many examples of unethical businesses. However, in the Western World generally, the benefits that our society has derived from strong and progressive businesses are ENORMOUS.
Are business and ethics like water and oil? Except in a relatively few examples, the answer is a resounding NO.
As the saying goes, “Money will not buy you happiness, but poverty buys you nothing". And money can only come from the creation of wealth through commerce and profitable businesses.
In case you don't accept his logic, just ask Air Malta and its employees what future they would have unless the airline returns to profitability.
Jessica Debattista
Jun 23rd 2011, 00:17
@ Arthur Soler: “The example quoted by Jessica DeBattista about Aspartame is frankly, rubbish. This link should clarify the truth about this artificial sweetener...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy”
Mr. Soler, I was nodding in agreement to all that you were saying till I was hit with your reference to me regarding Aspartame – the silent killer.
You referred me to the wikipedia site and I am now, myself, referring you to another site:
“The killer drugs – Aspartame”
Submitted by royhulsbergen on Fri, 20/05/2011 - 20:44
Excitotoxins In Seizure Meds
Cause MAJOR Problems
By Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum
5-18-11
http://icare.drupalgardens.com/content/killer-drugs-aspartame
The following is an excerpt which struck me:
“The FDA has written twice that they have more important priorities. In other words the law means nothing. In 2007 I wrote an amendment based on an imminent health hazard because it required being answered in a week or ten days. The FDA has refused to answer. Finally about a year ago someone from the FDA called and told me as to imminent health hazard it would not happen. I told the FDA that it is required by law, in writing. When I said people are sick and dying all over the world he said, "So what, we need to depopulate!"
This is a heinous crime putting deadly aspartame in medications that are used to treat the problems it causes. Aspartame actually interacts with anti-seizure medication. Congress has recently given more power to the FDA when they have already betrayed the public's trust. The first thing they did with this power is go after a company trying to help autistic children. Aspartame is an abortifacient and teratogen and triggers autism which is now epidemic.”
And here is another one:
POISONED DRUGS & VITAMINS
Return to Subject Index - Main Index
(Aspartame Made by Monsanto the world's largest manufacturer of poisons and pollutants)
http://www.aspartame.ca/page_a3.html
“Aspartame is not only used in food, per se, but is also used in pharmaceutical products. You might be surprised by the number of products that contain aspartame. A sample research project was initiated in April 1994, with requests to companies that produce pharmaceuticals. A number of companies failed to respond to a request for information. Some companies did respond. Pumping aspartame into children appears to be a priority! Frequently it is not listed on the outside of the package but in the small print on the slip of paper inside the package.”
The site goes on to give an extensive list of all the products that contain Aspartame. Makes one think if nothing else…..
It would certainly create an uproar if it is confirmed that Aspartame is in fact the silent killer it is made out to be in these sites.
So Mr Soler, I do not think that what I said in my last post is “rubbish”.
And to finish off here is yet another one:
Aspartame: The History Of A Killer - The Whole Story
By Arthur M. Evangelista
Former FDA Investigator
3-30-4
http://www.rense.com/general50/KILLER.HTM
Worth a read!
“Aspartame is a toxin, and is unique in this hazardous respect. This in NOT an allergic reaction, but rather a true toxin. No other food can be provided as a comparison to the toxic nature of NutraSweet. Upon closer examination, the available research revealed that the manufacturer (Monsanto) and the FDA are manipulating the public (via the media) into thinking that aspartame is safe. It is not. As an American who trusted the system we all created, as an American who worked for the system, it made me angry that public health has taken a backseat to greed. This is the "engine" that perpetuated this epidemic: the collusion of our government with multi-national conglomerate influence.”
D Mifsud
Jun 22nd 2011, 11:46
I personally think that as long as we live in a Monetary System, being Ethical will always be at its lowest. A small business CANNOT AFFORD to be etichal, as this may cost its own survival!
A business's main goal is Profit and altough we can differ a speculator from a business leader, in reality, every business man was successfull and flourished out of business starategies that destroyed its competitors (therefore inducing redundancy), advertising that persuaded the public to use / buy the product, irrelavant whether they needed it or not ecc. For me this is not ethical. The basic principals in Business is not ethical!
It is money that kills ethics, it is money that makes hunger, it is money that is always battling with our humane feelings, reasoning and logic, and it is money that makes you powerful or not.
I have to say this, even the church which is one of the most richest institutions in the world, it is money and political power that made it flourish. If you go through its history, we will all agree, that there were unethical actions which brought in money in their bank account!
Unfortunately, that is the world we re living in!
Jessica Debattista
Jun 21st 2011, 14:33
@ Fr. Joe: “You have to persuade yourself that you need that object in the sea more than those hungry, miserable individual do. You fight to get it. If you can do that, than you can become a successful businessman."
Let’s face it. In life one has to “fight” to get what one wants. “Toqghodx tistenna l-bajtra taqa f’halqek!” So we say. So we work and strive to achieve our aim in life. But what is absolutely unacceptable is to trample over others at the cost of causing them irreparable harm so long as you get to where you have set your mind on.
A business man is no different from any other man in whatever occupation in life. It is just that a business man is, a priori, regarded with suspicion.
It is when the accumulation of wealth becomes such a powerful driving force, to the extent that one turns a blind eye to the negative repercussions that could affect others, that one can say that business and ethics don’t mix.
In the United State some years ago, there was an epidemic of multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus. It was difficult to determine exactly what toxin was causing this to be rampant. It turned out that Aspartame, a substitute for sugar was the culprit. Diet coke addicts were badly hit.
“There were congressional Hearings when Aspartame was included in 100 different products and strong objection was made concerning its use but the drug and chemical lobbies have very deep pockets”
The creator of Aspartame knew how deadly it was. But isn’t it ironic that the creator of aspartame funded among others, the America Diabetes Association, the American Dietetic Association and the Conference of the American College of Physicians?
“Senator Howard Metzenbaum wrote and presented a bill that would require label warnings on products containing Aspartame, especially regarding pregnant women, children and infants.
The bill would also institute independent studies on the known dangers and the problems existing in the general population regarding seizures, changes in brain chemistry, neurological changes and behavioural symptoms.
The bill was killed.
It is known that the powerful drug and chemical lobbies are responsible for this, letting loose the hounds of disease and death on an unsuspecting and uninformed public.”
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
Jun 20th 2011, 23:34
Where does APS Bank fits in all this?
Mr Joe Micallef
Jun 20th 2011, 16:35
I think that all business people are speculative and have one invariable goal which frames all their actions, interactions and transactions -profit! Notwithstanding how much they may genuinely try, if push comes to shove ethics flies out of the window.
And I have no problem with that!
My problem is that consumers are not discerning enough in their choices between businesses who contribute to a better society and those that don’t in their quest for profit. I have an even worst problem when consumers try to shift that necessary discernment to some authority.
My wish is that marketing and communications will one day be researched and thought from the perspective of the consumer!
Ms Lina CARUANA
Jun 20th 2011, 10:45
i understand we are all without merit because merit comes from Jesus Christ without whom no one could have been saved. If all believers in Jesus Christ will bear that in mind ,the world would be a better place because this is a good basis for a close and good relationship with God and neighbour.
Frank Portelli 2BFRANK
Jun 19th 2011, 19:18
Father Joe
Congratulations on the Anniversary of your Ordination !
The Church needs more priests like yourself – especially at times like this.
Allow me to say that I do not agree that you are “ minghajr meriti” – without merit
This terminology came about from a poor translation of the Bible where the Greek word used in Luke 17.10 was “ Achreios”
Achreios is best translated as “ without profit” not without merit.
“Doulos Achreios” is not “ Servi Inutili” – as we keep hearing from various quarters.
“Doulos Achreios” is best translated as “Servants (who work) not for Profit”.
Long may you continue to do so.
Frank Portelli
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
Jun 20th 2011, 09:57
I think this was a bit over the top.Some people show what they are, others, I am not so sure that they do. For example during the divorce debate, Fr Joe was not balanced and he kept repeating terms such as "divorzju bla raguni" etc. which he knew were not what was meant by the Yes movement. That people like Alistair Campbell specialize in spin is an ugly fact but as laymen it is a job to be done, irrespective how unpleasant it may be. But when a member of the clergy get involved in spin, it is much less acceptable.
Happy anniversary.
Victor Rodenas
Jun 20th 2011, 11:08
I think that what FR.Joe had in mind about merit comes from St. Paul`s justification of merit, but that is a very long story........
Mr Andy Farrugia
Jun 20th 2011, 14:06
@ Mr Mario P Sciberras
At times i am really amazed at how some people actually believe that they can twist reality. Now, i do not happen to be one of Fr Borg's fans but how can he be accused of spin or of not being balanced? Have you forgotten the fact that Fr Borg never once mentioned the word "sin" in all his writings about the issue? Have you forgotten the declaration issued by the six 'sages' (in a positive sense) about "an informed conscience", which was appreciated by most people of goodwill? I just cannot fathom how the dirty tricks of the YES camp were somehow glossed over by the media (the Nazi comparison, accusing others of spiritual terrorism) whereas the mistakes of the NO camp were the focus of intense scrutiny. It seems as if some people are beginning to believe their own spin so much that they accuse others of spinning, weaving and equivocating. Did i hear anyone mention the word "Hypocrisy"? Nooooo!
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 21st 2011, 06:35
@ Andy Farrugia:
"It seems as if some people are beginning to believe their own spin so much that they accuse others of spinning, weaving and equivocating".
For once, I have to agree. Ironic, isn't it?
Mr Joe Borg
Jun 22nd 2011, 07:25
Frank thanks for your congrats and your erudite comment on "doulos archreios". I always knew that you are a man of many talents but I did not know that your talents included the Greek used in the New Testament. A very interesting comment indeed. Fr Joe
Mr Joe Borg
Jun 22nd 2011, 07:29
" Mario P Sciberraw. Thanks for your congrats. The usage of the phrase "divorzju bla raguni" was not a spin but a correct rendering of the term "no fault divorce". To get such a divorce - such as approved by the referendum - you do not need to give any reason, justification or excuse whatsoever. The issue was fudged when the word "no fault divorce" was used and not when the words "divorzju bla raguni" were used.
Mr Andy Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2011, 14:40
@ Kenneth Cassar
Irony indeed; am glad that you have finally come round to my way of thinking and owned up to the errors of your ways. A pleasant surprise.
Mr Andy Farrugia
Jun 22nd 2011, 15:03
@ Kenneth Cassar
Irony, indeed! Am glad that you have finally come round to my way of thinking and that you have owned up to the errors of your ways. A pleasant surprise.
Victor Rodenas
Jun 19th 2011, 18:30
Sometimes acts of philanthrophy are used to redeem their conscience.They give 10% of what they stole to cool conscience, better than nothing.But, will God accept that?
Mr Peter Korsten
Jun 19th 2011, 15:01
It really depends on what your definition of 'successful' is. In your example, the businessman's definition was monetary gain, regardless of the way this was achieved.
For others, it may be how they are involved with society and the world around us. It's really quite simple to find out. If you do business with a company, be it a bank, or a retailer, or a phone company, ask them what they are doing that does not involve making a profit: ask them what they did to try to make this world a better place.
Quite a few companies in Malta do actually spend quite a bit on things they find important. There is a reason why you see the same names and logos everywhere.
Please choose the reason of your report below: