glass house philosopher / notebook 2
Monday, 23rd October 2006
For background music, I've selected Ministry of Sound Summer 2000 Clubber's Guide to Ibiza. Ice chilled. You could describe it as, 'music to dance to the end of the world by'. I imagine, if Armageddon ever comes, these will be the very last people spaced out at 4am on alcohol, Ecstasy and the relentless electronic beat to know about it.
I usually work in silence, but not today. I need something to break up my thoughts. It's not always good to think too hard fancy a philosopher saying that.
Even though my so-called 'business philosophy' has revealed a hole large enough to pass the moon and several planets through (page 125), I decided last week to go ahead with the launch of Klempner Consultants despite that, and despite the fact that I already have a website Philosophies for Business which was originally intended as the site for my business consultancy.
After my daughter Ruth described the first version of the original business site as 'something duggen up by the Time Team' (page 115) I asked her to design an alternative, which is miles better but unsuitable for the original purpose that I had in mind. So it was back to the drawing board. Philosophies for Business will now be my personal business philosophy page, while Klempner Consultants is reserved for my consultancy partnership.
The timing couldn't be worse. The main person I was going to be in partnership with doesn't like the way my ideas are going. At all. That's quite understandable, since I'm apparently doing the very opposite of what any consultant who seriously wanted a company to hire them would be doing. All I can do is repeat the old Socratic chestnut, 'I'm ignorant, but at least I know I am.'
Now, I'm temporarily going it alone. I'm not unduly worried. There's a purpose behind this, I'm convinced of that, I just haven't quite fathomed out what that purpose is yet.
Last week Rachel Browne, Reviews Editor for the e-journal Philosophy for Business forwarded me an email from Corporate Watch about their new report What's Wrong With Corporate Social Responsibility?. According to Corporate Watch,
The report argues that far from being a mitigation of corporate damage, CSR's intentional effects are to: dupe the public; avoid regulation; disarm critics; bolster their reputations; cosy up to governments; gain access to international summits; exploit developing country markets; and continue their war on the climate.
The bottom line is that corporations are legally obliged to consider only profit, no amount of green talk will undo the damage corporations continue to cause. It can only distract us from the plain fact that big business has too much power.
A breath of sanity, or hysterical nonsense?
'Does big business have too much power? Discuss.'
Well, here's an alternative essay title: 'Does government have too much power? Discuss.'
Which begs an interesting question: is there any way to take power away from big business without giving more power to government? ('Which government?' would be another question as we are talking about international companies and corporations.)
I quite like the theory that with the rapid growth and increasing sophistication of consumer consciousness the demand for ethical and environmentally friendly products, fair trade etc. the power of the NGO's (non-government organisations) is dwindling in proportion. Consumers are the ones with economic power, the only group with sufficient force to influence the marketing men. That would be a good thing, since NGO's are responsible to no-one, and mainly attract individuals who would not have a snowflake's chance in hell of making it in business or politics.
But then again, not all NGO's can be bad, as Pathways and the ISFP is, effectively, an NGO. But is it, though? In the past, I've described Pathways as a 'business', but it's not really that, either. It's one of a new breed of semi-for-profit organisations whose primary aim is to bring about change...
I just noticed that the music has stopped. Pause to put on CD2.
...What is all this about, anyway?
This isn't one of my extended exercises in irony, although I see how it could be seen as that. (Then again, you can't believe everything an old ironist says.)
On a purely practical level, I would have to trim my beard, remove my hair bun, squeeze into a suit. I'm not sure I'm quite ready for that. And then, assuming the makeover, I would actually have to meet business people. OK, it's not as if I've never met business people before. Rachel's husband Andrew is retired CE0 of a £300m public company. I went down to Shell to see Robin Aram. But in both cases that was in a purely non-professional capacity. I was free to be myself...
...Hang on a minute. The thought just came to me:
What this is, is an experiment.
Now, I'm beginning to understand.
Just like the days of my youth, setting up elaborate chemical experiments in the bathroom.
Instead of putting together complicated bits of glass apparatus, I make web sites. 'I wonder what would happen if I did this.'
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!