I am very interested in economic accountability, and sustainability's compound exponentials from a systems mapping perspective as well as that of searching for humanitarian truth. Both seem to me to have been unified in the pattern rules that Gandhi gave (and his alumni give to) the world.
After all its absurd for any organisation to claim that it is serving what customers (markets) and human beings want if it is actually governed by metrics that are perfect for compounding the end of human sustainability - be the particular ends: climate, poverty's injustice, wars, ill health to name but 4 that Larry Brilliant maps as being connecetd
However, mathematically my system mapping friends and I cannot find any logics to suggest that intervening at the separate corporate level is sufficient. We* have learnt from sustainability mapping that responsibility needs to be applied at the global market sector level connecting all the major corporate systems in the sector. Indeed the first 15 years of SCR were descrided as fluff by the crusading CSR journalist Margaret Kelly. If you have a different mathematical/value argument, please could you share some more details on it -how can separtae corporates be a sufficient system level to intervene at in a hyper-connecting world?
Where I say we , I have surveyed at least 10 different management disciplines over the last decade as to why their deepest professionals are compounding risks that surely they did not originally study to be an expert in. In every case we have concluded that the global market sector level not individual corporations is where the sytm intervention of transparency needs to be made. Incidentally I regard nations as just one such global market sector (albeit the rather special one of places and the cultural and natural resource systems they need tio integrate and collaborate across borders)
This seems to be a worthwhile activity and one that perhaps expands anticorruption into an area where it is not as frequently pursued – multinational companies. However, two weaknesses in the proposal should be addressed.
First, the nexus with corruption is nowhere discussed. The outcomes of some industrial processes are identified as harming the environment and infringing human rights. These allegations seem to have a clear factual basis. But corruption is not discussed, and it is not the same as either environmental harm or human rights abuse. In fact, the role of corruption in all this would require some further analysis, to establish, for example, that companies and governments colluded to circumvent environmental and human rights norms. For example, perhaps there was bribery or cronyism involved. This case has not been made, nor even mentioned.
Second, it is not clear from the proposal that the approach is balanced. The proposal seems to reach the conclusion rather quickly that environmental and human rights violations are the fault of the companies involved, and that the companies are ill-intentioned. There is no attempt at cost-benefit comparison, weighing, for example, effluents against local or national economic growth. Not that this is the answer to everything, but it should at least be addressed. Are the companies violating local, national, or international norms? Is their action illegal? To what extent are governments, domestic or foreign, culpable? Does CEDHA engage directly with the companies to discuss solutions? The proposal would be better if it more clearly showed that actual wrongs were being righted, that responsibility is being appropriately assigned, and that solutions were being worked out.
My name is Rich Gottbreht from Global Insights and I am one of the entrants in the competition. Our work centers on helping anyone concerned about corruption learn about the subject through my book, our board game and its associated seminars, as well as low cost consulting. To find out more about us please visit our website www.globalinsights.biz. From the home page, you can link to information about us, our products and what people say about our products and services. From the details in the initiative we submitted you should also note that some of the proceeds from our sales will eventually go to a high integrity leadership development foundation. Also, if you are interested, down the road we will be looking for alliances and contacts in every country.
Comentarios
I am very interested in economic accountability, and sustainability's compound exponentials from a systems mapping perspective as well as that of searching for humanitarian truth. Both seem to me to have been unified in the pattern rules that Gandhi gave (and his alumni give to) the world.
After all its absurd for any organisation to claim that it is serving what customers (markets) and human beings want if it is actually governed by metrics that are perfect for compounding the end of human sustainability - be the particular ends: climate, poverty's injustice, wars, ill health to name but 4 that Larry Brilliant maps as being connecetd
However, mathematically my system mapping friends and I cannot find any logics to suggest that intervening at the separate corporate level is sufficient. We* have learnt from sustainability mapping that responsibility needs to be applied at the global market sector level connecting all the major corporate systems in the sector. Indeed the first 15 years of SCR were descrided as fluff by the crusading CSR journalist Margaret Kelly. If you have a different mathematical/value argument, please could you share some more details on it -how can separtae corporates be a sufficient system level to intervene at in a hyper-connecting world?
Where I say we , I have surveyed at least 10 different management disciplines over the last decade as to why their deepest professionals are compounding risks that surely they did not originally study to be an expert in. In every case we have concluded that the global market sector level not individual corporations is where the sytm intervention of transparency needs to be made. Incidentally I regard nations as just one such global market sector (albeit the rather special one of places and the cultural and natural resource systems they need tio integrate and collaborate across borders)
This seems to be a worthwhile activity and one that perhaps expands anticorruption into an area where it is not as frequently pursued – multinational companies. However, two weaknesses in the proposal should be addressed.
First, the nexus with corruption is nowhere discussed. The outcomes of some industrial processes are identified as harming the environment and infringing human rights. These allegations seem to have a clear factual basis. But corruption is not discussed, and it is not the same as either environmental harm or human rights abuse. In fact, the role of corruption in all this would require some further analysis, to establish, for example, that companies and governments colluded to circumvent environmental and human rights norms. For example, perhaps there was bribery or cronyism involved. This case has not been made, nor even mentioned.
Second, it is not clear from the proposal that the approach is balanced. The proposal seems to reach the conclusion rather quickly that environmental and human rights violations are the fault of the companies involved, and that the companies are ill-intentioned. There is no attempt at cost-benefit comparison, weighing, for example, effluents against local or national economic growth. Not that this is the answer to everything, but it should at least be addressed. Are the companies violating local, national, or international norms? Is their action illegal? To what extent are governments, domestic or foreign, culpable? Does CEDHA engage directly with the companies to discuss solutions? The proposal would be better if it more clearly showed that actual wrongs were being righted, that responsibility is being appropriately assigned, and that solutions were being worked out.
Hello,
My name is Rich Gottbreht from Global Insights and I am one of the entrants in the competition. Our work centers on helping anyone concerned about corruption learn about the subject through my book, our board game and its associated seminars, as well as low cost consulting. To find out more about us please visit our website www.globalinsights.biz. From the home page, you can link to information about us, our products and what people say about our products and services. From the details in the initiative we submitted you should also note that some of the proceeds from our sales will eventually go to a high integrity leadership development foundation. Also, if you are interested, down the road we will be looking for alliances and contacts in every country.
Thanks,
Rich Gottbreht
Enviar un comentario nuevo