At a recent lecture-series on ‘ethics in business and politics’, there were courageous stories on how some of the speakers stood by principles, stating that individual actions do matter in bring about positive change around them. But, by and large, leaders also seem frustrated while explaining the limitations of mere systemic change. They appeal for a corresponding change of behaviour as well. ‘If I can take one step, India can take a billion!’ Did you hear that recently? Therefore, while translating good ideas, a change in the system (the niti) has to be complimented by a change in behaviour (the niyat) to ultimately fulfil the big purpose, for individual efforts to then gather the critical mass.
The new changes in rules for business are not just aimed at economic progress. They really raise high hopes of a unique possibility of Indian business to contribute towards genuine human development and wellbeing of all, especially the poor. The new companies’ bill, the reforms in stock exchange and banking sectors, and similar reforms on land acquisition and labour, would be supplementary changes in the systems piece (the niti). In response, with crony capitalism in the conversation on a high pitch, business has the humongous challenge of the increasing billionaires in India (largely from business communities) making more than the GDP of tens of poor nations! Millions of children die of completely avoidable health related causes for want of life-saving support or medicines. The entire voluntary sectors and governments pitch in, while business continues to run on the assumption to first maximise revenue and profit, before it gives. Is this still acceptable? Is this not an ethical deficit? The recent inconvenient reports about river and water pollution, and more so, the condition of the Ganges clearly nail the unchanging behaviour in reducing industrial and other pollution by the people at large. If not from motivation, where will the billion steps come from?
Firstly, the ethical assumption regarding ownership of business becomes crucial, when large measures of value belonging to those making it, is held by a few, who, as everyone knows are only custodians. There is an ethical gap without an appropriate obligation or process to really show how a business co-creates value and how fairly and precisely it is distributed to its contributors.
Secondly, in spite of the light shed on governance in recent years, the actual process is confined only to a few levels. What about governance throughout the value-chains and the relationships the concerned need to ideally have with companies on a sustained and a reasonable ground? In essence, it is about building an operating-consensus with everybody on all possible issues beyond the typical ones like wages, terms of contact with dealers, supplier networks and all affected. What outweigh are instances to show otherwise about exploitation of sorts where no segment of the value-chain can really go beyond basic survival. The surplus created this way is further legitimised by keeping aside a mandated couple of per cent for CSR, which is different from the nobler idea of profit well supported by an ethic embedded in decent costing, pricing and valuation processes in business.
We may continue to need systemic change in the future. But the more essential challenge is a culture of behavioural-ethic from courageous and proactive Indian business leaders and followers volunteering to go in line with our glorious legacy of a century or more! Innovations in products and processes; cultivating the habit of working in rural areas; effective and imaginative use of technology to meet practical needs of the underprivileged; products designed for the long-term to reduce waste; executives empathising with the struggles of working people; and many such critical and ethic-driven motivation would evolve naturally from domains of behaviour where law and rules seem really hopeless. How can Indian business set an example of delivering real value and help the nation to take those billion steps?
COMMENT