Last week’s contribution focused on the topic of ‘Solidarity and fraternity in business decisions’. It contained thoughts emerging from the annual convention of the Centesimus Annus Pro Pontifice Foundation.

I had concluded that once the principle of interdependence among persons – even in the economic life of the community, is accepted, it becomes a very easy step to believe that solidarity and fraternity should form part of business decisions as it actually frees the individual to become the master of his or her situation and not remain a slave of the profit motive irrespective of everyone else.

However, it would be very pertinent to ask how this can be put into practice. Attempts have been made in this direction. For example, when we speak of corporate social responsibility, we are referring to the moral obligation that businesses have to contribute to the society in which they are operating.

Similarly, when we speak of employee involvement at the place of work, especially in the decision-making process, we are referring to a form of fraternity. We could even talk of a state’s social welfare system, which seeks to redistribute income from those better off to those who are worse off.

Solidarity... has important practical dimensions. However, it requires a context and I believe that the task of every government is to create that context

The more one thinks of such examples, the more questions arise. The questions that arise are not meant to confuse the issue but should help in crystalising it.

Pope Francis had spoken of solidarity as being a social value. One asks whether it is an individual value or a collective value. If we were to limit solidarity to being a collective value, we would really be abdicating from our responsibility.

Yet there are many who believe that because they pay their taxes and such taxes go towards supporting those in need, then they do not feel obliged to support them individually. This does not mean that we should dismantle the social welfare system. What it does mean is that as individuals we should complement the social welfare system through individual actions.

We speak of solidarity and fraternity to support those persons in society who are vulnerable and who are likely to be less well off. In some countries, the term ‘poor’ no longer means what it meant 60 years ago before the advent of the welfare state. If we restrict ourselves just to those persons who could not support themselves economically and were therefore out on the streets begging, then there may not be so many left today.

So who are the new poor today? With whom does business have to show solidarity and fraternity? This implies that solidarity is not something static but something dynamic that reflects the needs of today’s and tomorrow’s society.

From a practical perspective, we also have to appreciate that it is very difficult for businesses to create metrics that measure solidarity, fraternity, human dignity and corporate social responsibility. Profit, cost-cutting, share price, balance sheet and market share are all concepts we can measure in terms of numbers.

Can one give a number to human dignity or attach a monetary value to solidarity? Moreover, if a business seeks a credit line from a bank, is it likely to look at its CSR activities or its bottom line? This would imply that we need to start analysing businesses not just from a perspective of numbers. But what tools are we going to use?

Another practical perspective is the element of corruption, tax evasion, market dominance and abuse of social benefits that may exist in an economy. If these are rife, solidarity can hardly take root, because it would not have fertile soil in which to grow. One can hardly speak of interdependence in an economy and of solidarity in business decisions if the basic fundamental rules in an economy are not adhered to. To what extent are governments willing to enforce these rules?

Therefore, although solidarity may seem to be a theoretical concept, it has important practical dimensions. However, it requires a context and I believe that the task of every government is to create that context.