glass house philosopher / notebook 2
Wednesday, 5th October 2005
The interviewer from SustainAbility wondered whether the business leader he had come to see on the 23rd Floor of the Shell Building London was 'set on becoming the Darth Vader of the human rights world'.
In 2004, as Shell's Vice-President of External Relations and Policy Development, the man in question was responsible for spearheading a vigorous campaign by the International Chamber of Commerce against the UN Human Rights Commission's proposed Norms on Business and Human Rights, which had taken four years to draft after extensive consultations. Human rights groups were up in arms.
I met that business leader yesterday. His name is Robin Aram.
We didn't go to the 23rd floor because Rachel Browne, my collaborator on the Philosophy for Business e-journal hates lifts. Before the interview, I joked to Rachel, 'Well done for getting Robin to come out of his perch (he he!) and meet us downstairs. He's used to wowing guests with the great view and plush office.'
Robin Aram met us as we passed through the security gates. Aram's pretty secretary guided us down escalators and through a maze of corridors to a small conference room where tea and biscuits were waiting for us on the table.
I didn't know what to expect. Aram's invitation was in response to my call in to business people in Philosophy for Business Issue 21 to make myself 'available for free consultation'. In an email to Rachel, Aram wrote, 'I have been circulating the ISFP newsletter to some colleagues: it has a small but select readership.' Was it something I had written in the business newsletter? Or was Shell going to offer me sponsorship or maybe a job?
No such luck. He just wanted to talk to a philosopher. And that's what we did for an hour and half.
There might have been a job in the offing. 'We went through a crisis in 19956 when we could have really used you,' Aram said, smiling mischievously. His advice was to do a bit of ambulance chasing. 'You should scan the news for companies in trouble with human rights or ethics codes and offer your help.'
Not a bad idea, I thought...
Half an hour before the meeting, in a smart wine bar opposite the Shell building, I had explained to Rachel my plan of attack. 'There is no valid argument for CSR,' I said. 'The argument from self-interest the business case says, "If you do this and this then it will be good for your corporate image and help get the NGOs (non-government organizations) off your back." In other words, the least you can get away with. The argument from ethics says, "You ought to care about social deprivation and human rights violations," but in the business arena, the ethics of care doesn't apply. Ethics is only there to ensure that business people play by the rules. What follows from that? If there is no valid argument for the kind of change we want to see, then you have to make it happen by other means. You have to find the mechanism which will lead to change.'
Rachel nodded sagely. 'You mean, you worked all that out while I was in the Ladies room?'
'I'm a genius.'
I tried my line on Aram. He was patient, but sceptical. 'You said, "If". If what you say is true and there is no argument from self-interest or ethics. But I disagree. At Shell, we like to think of what we do as "enlightened self-interest". We take into account the increasing expectations of society, what the NGOs are saying, and aim to be proactive. Shell was formed a hundred years ago, and we would like to continue for another hundred years. That can only happen if we apply the principles of corporate responsibility in every part and at every level of our operation.'
I pointed out that even on the best case scenario, enlightened self-interest only takes you so far. There will still be many things which we would like to see changed, which we feel ought to change but which nothing will be done about because the financial cost is too high. The business case won't allow it.
'What do you expect? We are a business, we have to compete.'
'I want more. I think we can do more, we have to. Consider climate change. I remember thirty years ago seeing a feature on the BBC Tomorrow's World program about cars running on Hydrogen. You use energy to make Hydrogen by electrolysis of water. Then you fill up your car with Hydrogen. The car burns Hydrogen turning it back into water again.' Aram smiled. I was teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. 'Well, one day, when the oil reserves are nearly dry, you will start looking at Hydrogen...'
'...I have to stop you there,' said Aram. 'In Washington DC, you can actually go to a Shell gas station and fill your car up with Hydrogen.'
'But it's very expensive.'
'Yes of course its not economic or competitive now but you have to start somewhere.'
'But the point I'm making is that global warming won't wait for the "business case" to make Hydrogen the economic alternative. There is an assumption here, just as with corporate responsibilty and human rights, that the invisible hand of economics will put everything right if you just wait long enough. But by then it might be too late.'
Aram looked thoughtful. 'I still don't fully agree but let me hear the rest of it.'
I gave him the rest, mainly from my article on Corporate Social Responsibility. Aram was impressed with the idea of starting a 'chain reaction' where companies competed to outdo one another a virtual economy of idealism, reputation and prowess. Then Aram told me about the Shell Foundation project, Enterprise Solutions to Poverty which involved offering much-needed finance to new third world businesses which, once successfully started up, were then able to attract finance from other sources. Shell finance acted as the 'catalyst'. I suggested the idea of a 'self-stoking cycle'. The idea is that you put something in. The reaction starts, and then continues without need of any further intervention.
How to start the chemical reaction? That's the sixty-four thousand dollar question.
While we were ruminating, Rachel took the opportunity to intervene. How had I done? Did Aram think that I could make a successful case to business people to take me on as a philosophical consultant? I would have to give a much more structured presentation, Aram said. Basically, it came down to working out my USP. I couldn't disagree with that statement.
'One more thing before I go,' I said. From my briefcase, I fished out the Pathways CD-ROM, and a second CD-ROM which is given to Pathways Mentors, with all six Pathways Programs in PDF format. 'I know that you are retiring soon. When you have a spare moment, browse through these. Maybe you would like to take a program.' Aram looked genuinely delighted to receive this freebie. 'Well, I have something for you,' he said, grinning, as he reached into his inside pocket. 'This is the Shell CD-ROM, Governance in Shell which has our Policies and Standards, Management Primers, Codes of Conduct and Annual Reports.' We all laughed.
Before the meeting, I'd said to Rachel, modestly, 'As long as Aram doesn't think we've wasted his time I will be happy. Anything we can learn will be a bonus.' But it was clear that my expectations had been greatly exceeded. He had enjoyed our encounter. So did we.
I don't believe what I read in newspapers and magazines. The man I talked to was no Darth Vader. But I also knew that I was being given the Shell company line in the nicest possible way. Others, like Friends of the Earth or Christian Aid, might tell a different story. But I'm hopeful for the future. As long as there is is room for movement, I, for one, will keep pushing.
Afterwards in an email to Robin Aram, Rachel admitted she had 'really wanted to ask about more detailed reasons for campaigning against the UN Norms on business and human rights.' For the record, here is Aram's reply:I'm afraid that this was an ill-fated initiative started by human rights lawyers and academics which in my view didn't really take account of the realities of the subject they were addressing and they didn't really consult with their main target: business. Therein lay the seeds of its own destruction. Not surprisingly therefore, apart from irritating business, it was acceptable neither to governments nor ultimately the UN itself. On a more positive note, on the back of the discussion of the draft norms Kofi Annan appointed a Special Representative on business and human rights to explore more systematically the issues of the responsibilities of business with respect to human rights. The person appointed is John Ruggie, a Harvard professor who was one of the architects of the UN Global Compact, of which we are strong supporters. We look forward to working with Ruggie who we know well as he takes his work forward. So perhaps something good will come out of the norms fiasco after all.
So now you know.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!