In November I’ll be with others on a Woodbrooke online course, thinking about what we as Quakers have to say about capitalism. I look forward to that discussion!
There is not only the question of our moral position on capitalism, but also of identifying our corporate and individual options. If capitalism is like the sea we swim in, there is little point in having a position about it. But perhaps it is more like the atmosphere – changeable!
Since the late 1980s, I’ve been aware that humanity’s contribution to climate change has become greater each year. (For instance, see this (@parentsforfuture) )
But collapse isn’t imminent. In one sense, this is unfortunate: the early signs are present but not sufficient to warn us to change course. Food prices. Weather catastrophes. Areas becoming uninhabitable. Dead zones growing in the sea. An increase in the flow of migrants. Distress of teenagers. Some birth rates falling – possibly because humanity is hitting the buffers and more households are under increasing financial stress. Possibly because of the way increasing inequality is driving up house prices and rents in many parts of the world (which we should expect as the margins of subsistence are used up).
Is it the financial incentives which guide our decisions? Joint-stock companies incentivise what we have seen in the water companies: they prioritise dividends, bonuses and shareholder value rather than public good. Asset stripping in some cases. Increasing numbers of people are refusing to pay the sewage proportion of their water bills in protest against the inadequate sewage processing. This is an option available to those in a secure financial position. But political pressure has also been mounting to confront the casual pollution of England’s rivers.
Only in large numbers can we affect the actions of large multinational companies. But really we would need to tackle the root cause. Joint-stock companies are incentivised by the structure and governance to do exactly what the water companies have done. A different form of corporate governance is needed.
At a minimum, company boards need to reflect the public interest and the needs of workers and the local community. Full public ownership is an alternative option but not the only one. Social enterprises add value that is not reflected in their turnover or profits; their incomes are applied for the purposes specified in their constitution and used for further investment in these goals, rather than in the interests of shareholders.
The joint stock form of sharing risk has been prevalent since the 18th century. Companies like the East India Company took no account of social risks, such as the impact of pillaging colonised societies, or the destruction of cultures. Today, multinationals may choose to mitigate environmental harm and human rights abuses only insofar as it affects their share price.
Can we encourage the growth of different forms of corporate governance, to change some of those incentives? The co-operative movement has one approach to just such changes, and the number of social enterprises is growing. In Germany, workers’ councils and worker representatives on company boards are normal. There are many routes to change, whether through individual purchasing decisions or via legislative control of the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy. Should we be having a Quaker conversation about this?
Gill Westcott