Temperatism, Volume II: Doing Good Through Business With a Social Conscience 1949443620, 9781949443622

Citation preview

EBOOKS FOR BUSINESS STUDENTS

Curriculum-oriented, borndigital books for advanced business students, written by academic thought leaders who translate realworld business experience into course readings and reference materials for students expecting to tackle management and leadership challenges during their professional careers.

• Unlimited simultaneous usage • Unrestricted downloading and printing • Perpetual access for a one-time fee • No platform or maintenance fees • Free MARC records • No license to execute The Digital Libraries are a comprehensive, cost-effective way to deliver practical treatments of important business issues to every student and faculty member.

For further information, a free trial, or to order, contact:  [email protected] www.businessexpertpress.com/librarians

Doing Good Through Business With a Social Conscience

Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior Collection

Carrie Foster Temperatism is more than a bleeding heart version of the capitalist ideal. Its purpose is to tackle key injustices and social inequality that are symptoms of the capitalist market system. By focusing on an agenda of doing good, temperatism seeks to reduce the level of elitism and social exclusion, that capitalism claims are inevitable, by sharing access to resources and ensuring that all individuals have the opportunity to exercise their talent potential. With the world economy in flux and globalism under pressure from populist politicians finding a new way to think about business and doing good is significant at this point in history. The hurt and pain that inequality inflicts on individuals and groups in society through exclusion and neglect is in conflict with our natural sense of affinity, collaboration and our intrinsic sense of fair play and justice. The dysfunction that we are currently experiencing in our society is as a direct result of the inequality within our society. Temperatism is based on the idea that humanity has the potential to co-operate, collaborate, assist and contribute to the greater good. The questions discussed in Volume 2 explore how replacing the profit motive with a doing good motive makes it possible to tackle some of society’s biggest challenges including reducing poverty, improving access to health and education, defending human rights, and protecting the environment. Organizations with a social conscience will leave a legacy of which they can be rightly proud, shifting business from being the center of society’s problems to being its savior. Carrie Foster specializes in the facilitation of coaching, people management, and organization development interventions that deliver added value and a measurable ROI to bottom-line performance. As a proven commercial organization development practitioner, executive coach, practicing academic, and published author with a successful commercial career covering FMCG, industrial, manufacturing, and professional services, she has a track record of providing OD and coaching programs across the United Kingdom, Europe, Russia, and the Middle East that have met both the individual and business needs.

Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior Collection

Temperatism, Volume II TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

POLICIES BUILT BY LIBRARIANS

Temperatism, Volume II

FOSTER

THE BUSINESS EXPERT PRESS DIGITAL LIBRARIES

Doing Good Through Business With a Social Conscience

Carrie Foster

Temperatism, Volume II

Temperatism, Volume II Doing Good Through Business With a Social Conscience Carrie Foster

Temperatism, Volume-II: Doing Good Through Business With a Social Conscience Copyright © Business Expert Press, LLC, 2019. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means— electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other except for brief quotations, not to exceed 250 words, without the prior permission of the publisher. First published in 2019 by Business Expert Press, LLC 222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017 www.businessexpertpress.com ISBN-13: 978-1-94944-362-2 (paperback) ISBN-13: 978-1-94944-363-9 (e-book) Business Expert Press Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior Collection Collection ISSN: 1946-5637 (print) Collection ISSN: 1946-5645 (electronic) Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Services Private Ltd., Chennai, India First edition: 2019 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America.

Abstract Temperatism is more than a bleeding heart version of the capitalist ideal. Its purpose is to tackle key injustices and social inequality that are symptoms of the capitalist market system. By focusing on an agenda of doing good, temperatism seeks to reduce the level of elitism and social exclusion, which capitalism claims are inevitable, by sharing access to resources and ensuring that all individuals have the opportunity to exercise their talent potential. With the world economy in flux and globalism under pressure from populist politicians, finding a new way to think about business and doing good is significant at this point in history. The hurt and pain that inequality inflicts on individuals and groups in society through exclusion and neglect is in conflict with our natural sense of affinity and collaboration and our inherent sense of fair play and justice. The dysfunction that we are currently experiencing in our society is a direct result of the inequality within our society. Temperatism is based on the idea that humanity has the potential to ­cooperate, collaborate, assist, and contribute to the greater good. Volume II raises questions that explore how replacing the profit motive with a “doing good” motive makes it possible to tackle some of society’s biggest challenges including tackling poverty, improving access to health and education, defending human rights, and protecting the environment. Organizations with a social conscience will leave a legacy that they can be justly proud of, shifting business from being at the center of society’s problems to being its savior.

Keywords discrimination; diversity; human rights; organization studies; people and purpose before profit; social conscience; social studies

Contents Preface...................................................................................................ix Acknowledgments..................................................................................xiii Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10

Introduction......................................................................1 Doing Good Through Business........................................11 We’re All Responsible.......................................................29 Systems Thinking.............................................................47 The Importance of Ethics and Values...............................57 Social Conscience Begins with Your Employees................75 A Universal Income..........................................................87 Reputation and Legitimacy..............................................99 Stewards of Planet Earth................................................111 What Will Be Our Legacy?............................................127

References............................................................................................131 About the Author.................................................................................137 Index..................................................................................................139

Preface We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words. —Ursula K. Le Guin I have recently been watching the series Dirty Money on Netflix, and there is part of me that wonders how it is that corporate bosses have managed to become so evil. Organizations as entities are not good or bad, neither are people. Alex Gibney, the documentary-maker who made the series, says in a guardian interview (Fox 2018) that people are a “mixture of both” and goes on to explain that some of the businesspeople he spoke to “have a hard time understanding why anybody should consider them the bad guys—after all, they were just trying to make a buck.” In a particularly poignant moment in the episode on payday lenders, Scott Tucker sits, a broken man, revealing that he had to identify his brother’s body after his brother committed suicide and that he was the one who had to tell his mum what happened. His business practices may have been heinous, but you’d have to be especially coldhearted to crow about just desserts and not be able to empathize with the man who had lost everything. An enduring question is whether man is inherently evil. There is definitely evil in the world, and some people just seem to be born that way, and others become evil as a consequence of tragic events that happen to them. But I’m not sure it is true that men are evil by nature. Just as there are people who act with evil intent, there are people who act with love and kindness in their hearts. Of course, evil will always exist. It would be naïve to expect that if we promoted goodness, we could eradicate evil from the world. I think the truth is that we are born with the capacity to be good and evil. Perhaps I am overly optimistic about the good that humans are capable of, and I guess that is for you, dear reader, to form your own opinion on, but there is plenty of evidence of good in the world we live in,

x PREFACE

and I believe that in the midst of chaos, we as a society move toward good as a direction of travel. The more that it appears evil has succeeded, the more people in general gravitate toward doing good as a desired outcome. There is a saying that it is darkest before the dawn. Bad people will always exist in a good system, just as good people now exist in a bad system, and it will be difficult to rebuild trust in a new system and change habits and attitudes that the Western neoliberal capitalist system has ­engendered. However, many people are drawn into criminality because in today’s world it is easier to be bad than to do good. That needs to change. Looking at the world today, it would be fair to conclude that it is very dark. The stability of the economies in the West that seemed so staid and boring at the beginning of the millennium is in flux; the level of inequality in the world is increasingly apparent; and war, famine, poverty, and decay are prevalent. Just as it seems that we are living in more frightening times, we are confronted with grassroots movements, and momentum in the other direction. People seem to be more caring and more concerned and are taking personal responsibility for changing things for the better. As the pendulum of society swings wildly in the direction of bad, the reaction of the majority is toward humanity. We fight to find goodness and create space for good to shine brightly and with vigor. Bad things, whether that is natural or man-made disasters, appear to be the oxygen good needs to burn brightly. Any disaster, whether it is snowed-in drivers on the highway, a flood, or hurricane, brings people together and tightens the bond between human beings. From a financial perspective, we live in strange times. Within capitalism, an economic ideological system that seeks to drive growth, there is a disconnect and a divergence between what is good for investors and business and what is good for consumers and society. There are those who believe in the trickle-down effect and those who are still waiting for something, anything, of the wealth to trickle down to their level. The number of working poor has risen to levels not experienced since the Victorian era, and the wave of political populism we are experiencing in the West is a result of a decade of stagnant wages and declining living standards. There have been a number of false starts in the revolution, but the people are still seething at the pain of the Great Recession of 2008. The governmental austerity measures and the lack of culpability for the main players have seeded a deep resentment in

PREFACE xi

the people. They are angry and there is a demand for change. It is, however, easy to say what you don’t want. It is much harder to lay claim to something that you do want if you aren’t quite sure what “not this” looks like. As outlined in Volume I, Temperatism is more than a bleeding heart version of the capitalist ideal. Its purpose is to tackle key injustices and social inequality that are symptoms of the capitalist market system. By focusing on an agenda of Doing Good, Temperatism seeks to reduce the level of elitism and social exclusion, that capitalism claims are inevitable. The proposal is that by doing good it is possible for a shared access to ­resources and allows all individuals to have the opportunity to exercise their talent potential, leading to a virtuous cycle of holistic growth in human society. The hurt and pain that inequality inflicts on individuals and groups in society through exclusions and neglect is in conflict with our natural sense of affinity, desire for collaboration, and our intrinsic sense of fair play and justice. The dysfunction that we are currently ­experiencing in our society is a direct result of the inequality within our society that leads to institutional unfairness and injustice. The question this second volume explores is how replacing the profit motive with a doing good motive can make it possible to tackle some of society’s biggest challenges including overcoming poverty, improving access to health and education, defining human rights, and protecting the environment. This isn’t simply about an economic ideology, it is seeking to understand how our society should be built in order for humanity to move forward from a construct which is failing, and failing faster. Whether you are feeling frustration as a result of the growing inequality of wealth distribution, railing against the lack of social justice, exasperated by the political status quo and shenanigans of government unable to fix society’s problem, or simply wishing to explore an alternative to the current reality of human existence, I believe that Temperatism provides the foundation for a viable solution to be found. Finally, for change to happen, we as individuals have to be curious and understand that we are the difference that can be made to society, rather than waiting for someone else to do it. The good in society that we enjoy today are the result of us being able to stand on the backs of curious and courageous individuals who chose to make a difference. We too, can be the change that humanity needs.

Acknowledgments While I was writing this book, I once had to sit in a police car to answer a few questions following an incident where a cyclist was hurt (I wasn’t at fault). Asked by the police officer what my occupation was, I ­replied, “­Author.” That was the first time I felt I owned that job title. It is ­impossible to acknowledge every individual who has contributed during my life to get me to this point. Significant figures who fed my passion and curiosity for politics and social justice include Ed Murphy, who taught me politics at GCSE and A-level, fuelling a lifelong interest in the subject. My Dad, Jeremy Ashton, to my Mum’s frustration, is always up for lengthy argument and debates on any number of subject areas covered in this book. My husband, Stephen Foster is equally passionate about seeing a world free of suppression and often finds me videos on social media that have the ability to stir my passion and irk me regarding the inhumanity the world faces. My church pastor, Nick Pengelly, who isn’t afraid of my “far too liberal to be a Christian” leanings and is open to discussing issues occupying my mind as I walk in faith. And, finally, the inspiring women and men whom I have the privilege of working alongside, demonstrate to me that there is hope in business: Kirsty McNab, Ziz York, Jacqueline Esimaje-Heath, Andrew Bevington, Heath Ghent, Lizzie O’Rourke, Paul Bennett, Angie Hooper, and so on.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark; professionals built the Titanic. —Anon

Hopefully you are reading this book after reading Volume I, but given the length of the book, it is worth revisiting some of the key points as a reminder of what Temperatism is all about and why finding a new way to think about business and doing good is so important at this point in history. Temperatism as an ideology has evolved as a result of the growth of social business thinking and the sharing economy movement. Despite the prevailing populism and dominance of “individualistic” thinking, there is a growing movement toward social conscience today. Volume I argued that “fundamentally the role of organizations in society is to contribute to social wealth distribution and develop a different agenda for the purpose of profits to increase equality and ensure Basic Goods become universal” (Foster 2018). It is important to emphasize that Temperatism is not maligning entrepreneurialism; rather, it is the promotion of organizations taking responsibility for their pivotal role in society and seeking to deliver an agenda of Doing Good. The role of society and government is therefore to provide a supportive environment whereby organizations can execute their essential role in Doing Good in society. It is the organization that has the means and the ability to bring creative people together in an innovative way in which it is possible to deliver Doing Good and wealth creation in a far more efficient manner than relying on the government. If recent history has taught us anything, it is

2

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

that the government seemingly fails to deliver what is needed. The government should be involved in constructing the framework of regulation and legislation to ensure that organizations and the market are aligned to the Doing Good agenda while releasing business to adapt, create, and innovate for the benefit of society as a whole. Temperatism offers an organizational and market model, which is based upon cooperativism. It argues for the relationship between organization and society to be restructured to challenge dominant forms of fast capitalism and damaged forms of democracy. The purpose is to go beyond the triple bottom line of profit, people, and planet where there is competing tension between the three strands, toward an integrated social construction that supports profit for a purpose. The trifactor pulls together to utilize the strength of efficient and effective use of resources, alongside a human approach to work to deliver outcomes, which enhances society and naturally protects the planet purely because to do so is good for society and good husbandry in regard to environmental resources. The primary goal, therefore, is a society where there is mutual benefit to the owners of the means of production, within a democratic paradigm focused on the delivery of the broader social good. As a consequence, the power of the dominant “elite,” the mysterious dark force, which is robbing us of our rights and just reward, is limited through a realignment of the social construction in which society operates. Rather than developing state-owned entities, government and people power regulate the economic forms of social construction to invent, innovate, and create for the purpose of Doing Good in society. Foster (2018) states that the “difference being proposed is rather than organizations squeezing every last ounce of juice from their resources for the sake of more profit, the focus becomes a shared purpose.” Ultimately Temperatism becomes a choice that we make, which refines what is acceptable, politically, economically, and socially, stopping us, the people, from being independent from the means of production and instead making organizations and society interdependent. An open market is still required in order that people will invest in society, but it is regulated and shaped to drive forward a Doing Good agenda. This relies on people voting for democratic governments who are willing to confront big business, rather than kowtow to the money of lobbyists and create

Introduction

3

rules of engagement between the organization and society. The recent #MarchForLife demonstrates how people power can be utilized to ensure that the government is responding to the wishes of the people, and as a consequence, the seemingly impossible power of big money can be challenged by the strength of individuals coming together and determining to make a change. Government, therefore, will be responsible for creating rules and regulations to ensure that organizations operate effectively to deliver societal obligations relating to Basic Goods and Doing Good. The basis of Temperatism as an ideology goes beyond simply addressing the processes and systems in which society operates; it is the adoption of values that seek to protect Basic Goods for everyone and the reclamation of social morality. In a world where getting money is the main priority, it is easy to see why criminality and the pursuit of “material wealth” can make bad people of us all. It is not that “nice things” should be shunned. Temperatism does not advocate an Amish lifestyle. Rather, it is putting material things in their rightful place, something to enjoy and make our lives easier, but not the be all and end all. Capitalism has created a demand for freedom of expression of our individualism to become associated with the consumption of goods and services, as well as promoting access to luxury goods as a need rather than a focus on the provision of basic goods such as food, health, and roof over our heads. Consumption is no longer about “daily bread” but rather an explosion of choices based on wants and indulgence. Consumers have become little more than consumption whores. We no longer consider ourselves to be “working class” but aspire to be in the bracket of the squeezed middle classes. We have been encouraged by the monetization of the economic system to not wait for what we want, but to borrow so that we may take our proper part in maintaining our status in the consumer society. Whether the continuing austerity measures reduce our appetite for consumer fads readdresses the balance between selfishness and selflessness is yet to be determined. In a century where once owning a good pair of leather boots was considered doing well, now we are encouraged to have shoes to go with every outfit. Our homes are filled with consumer goods. For some of the baby boomers, they will remember getting their first television set. Now we have televisions in every room, including the bathroom and kitchen. Mobile phones launched in the 1980s were once the tool of the city spiv,

4

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

but are now in the hands of primary schoolchildren and our society transformed by the gadget in the palm of our hand. The expectation is that we all have access to these things and yet, just down your street, possibly not more than one hundred meters from your front door, will be someone who has no food to eat tonight, no clothes to keep them warm in winter, and no roof to protect them from the world outside. We have been tricked into believing that we need new, shiny things to be acceptable and accepted in our consumer society. If you don’t have the latest, greatest, fastest, shiniest, newest thing, then you are somehow less of a person, less human, and less socially acceptable. Even for those of us that are in paid employment, who “own” our own home, and enjoy a family holiday each year, we can begin to feel like we don’t have enough. We don’t appreciate the riches we have; the fact that we don’t have to worry where our next meal is coming from, that we live in a largely secure society, and that our rights are protected by democratic traditions is lost to the pursuit of more. But capitalism needs us to feel like we don’t have enough, that we need to aspire to have more if it is to increase sales, maintain growth, and ensure that investors feel confident. That same disease has now crept into our mainstream politics, whereby we are made to feel like losers, and the only way to win is by taking away the rights and dreams of others. We live in the society which is the opposite of keeping up with the neighbors next door. Rather than boosting everyone up to the best, we are intent on taking away from everyone else so we can feel better about ourselves. Exclusion is no longer limited to race, gender, or disability, it affects us all; if we fail to keep up then the only solution is to keep everyone else down. The net result of the pursuit to the bottom is doom and gloom. We are working longer hours, but are less productive. We have more things, but are less happy. We have a smaller government, but less rights. We have more freedom, but less equality. We are more connected, but more isolated. The pursuit of self-interest has done more harm to individual well-being than any war, dictatorship, or natural disaster, because we have done it to ourselves and continue to do so. We no longer live in a world where leaving doors and windows open or unlocked is considered normal, a man’s home has literally become his castle as human society becomes reduced to a series of boxes secured against the outside world and yet at the same time children and adults are

Introduction

5

walking around with gadgets and clothes that are worth more than one month’s wages. Our homes are filled with consumer goods; television sets in every room and increasing numbers of mobile phones, laptops, tablet computers, and games consoles. We interact with society in the safety of our own homes. Perhaps 30 years ago you would converse with your neighbors face to face, now most people don’t know the names of the people who live next door to them. Instead we connect with networks of thousands of people online who we have never met. Society is very different as a result of technology and globalization, which has brought with it new challenges in regard to Doing Good. Advocating a pursuit of Doing Good might appear at first an idealistic fantasy. We find ourselves in a situation where, rather than a society pursuing the best of what we are, we are instead all working toward the lowest common denominator. We justify doing bad things or condone others being morally repugnant because we all feel exploited and robbed in some way. We have stopped trusting each other, the state and the institutions and the organizations that we interact with, because we believe that everyone is securing their slice of the pie. We justify bending the rules, avoiding doing the right thing and become less honest in order to protect our own interests. The individualism of capitalism means that the only person who is going to look after a person is themselves and therefore looking after “number one” becomes the number one priority. The problem with looking after number one is that it limits your support to the capabilities that you have to support yourself. It excludes you from the best that is out there. We have become embarrassed about accepting help or charity because it reflects badly on our status and dents our pride in self-sufficiency. We shake our heads as we watch the pictures on the television of helpless children suffering, old people languishing in an inadequate care system, and the plight of the homeless, declaring that “someone should do something about this,” all the while forgetting that we are the ones that have what it takes to make a difference. What must be made clear is that Temperatism isn’t about frugality and uniformity. At its heart, humanity is driven by passion and desire, and cannot be snuffed out through policy and rules. The question is how to temper that excess of desire in order that everyone can experience what is Good. The desire of Temperatism is therefore how entrepreneurs and

6

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

organizations bring the fullness of human creation and possibility in an organized way. Business with a social conscience is a mechanism for Doing Good. Business can achieve what governments have systematically failed to, that is, utilizing the wealth and resources available to society to ensure that everyone, regardless of geography, social class, ethnicity, sex, or sexuality, is able to live in a society where their Basic Goods are fulfilled. Temperatism proposes that the key to releasing this dream is to release human potential through innovative productivity. Temperatism promotes a society where the focus moves away from who owns what and instead asks the question as to what might society achieve if everyone were free to be everything that they were born to be. The surplus that is sought is not an economic one, though that will be a consequence; instead it is a humane surplus created by purposeful endeavor. Rather than seeking to persuade people that they should consume more, it asks for people to commit their energy to seeking a society where everyone benefits and everyone gets to fulfill their potential. This idea is one that reoccurs time and again in human society. In modern society it is an idea that is seen as utopian or idealistic, but is such a “resilient parasite”; it is an “idea can transform the world and rewrite all the rules”— Christopher Nolan (via Dom Cobb in the 2010 movie: Inception). A key tenet of Temperatism is that the organization is important in the running of society. The proposal is that instead of allowing organizations to be a primary cause of the problem, we should focus on progressing the way we organize so that it is through business that sustainable progress can be achieved. Doing Good through Business with a Social Conscience seeks to progress society to better not worse economic and social development for everyone. The role of government is not diminished, and we don’t stop paying taxes. For the wealthiest there is a requirement to seek a return on investment not from exploitation of the less able, but in philanthropic ventures which alongside governmental research grants encourage and enable small entrepreneurial organizations with ideas for new technologies to have the means to design solutions for the betterment of society. The demand is for all elements of society, the individual, the organization, and the state, to get involved in a wholesale restructuring of society—to move away from isolated groups competing for space, and for

Introduction

7

state involvement relying on tinkering around the edges to an organized and proactive response to address the causes not the symptoms of civil unrest and inequality. It is a resolution to engage in societal deep heart surgery, address the problems caused by the way in which our economy is financed, supported, and run. The social must partner with the political and economic to develop critical thinking and reform the roles each societal actor plays. Temperatism advocates for the private ownership of the means of production, but demands that businesses operate with a social conscience and adopt new thinking as to how society should organize to deliver a Doing Good agenda, improving the people–organization relationship to deliver beneficial societal outcomes. This isn’t rocket science, or science fiction. In today’s economy, organizations already operate under a paradigm where they are committed to doing business differently. There is a recognition in the Human Resources profession and in management science that improving employee relations and conditions for workers, reducing environmental impacts, and addressing societal issues have a positive effect on business outcomes. Doing Good means that organizations choose to adopt a corporate social responsibility that goes beyond the laws and regulations currently set. Rather than losing competitive advantage or reducing profitability, the net result of integrating “social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” has delivered many benefits. Positive outcomes from self-restraint and intelligent use of organizational resources include: • • • • • • •

Investor attractiveness Improved market position Cost reduction and efficiency Enhanced trust Greater transparency Increased productivity Improved reputation and relationships with employees, suppliers, and clients • Enhanced employee motivation and loyalty • Improved talent attractiveness

8

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

• Reduced pollution • Reduced consumption of resources (Hodinkova and Sadovsky 2016) This isn’t about turning the globe into a giant hippie commune. But in the current system the gap between the haves and the have nots and the exploitation and the brutalization of the workplace means that kindness is no longer center stage. We fear to care about other people because we worry that we will be taken advantage of. In a world where self-interest rules, there is a lack of reciprocity in our dealings with other people. We talk about win–win but what we really want is to be able to come out on top. What businesses that are Doing Good teach us is that a Temperatist agenda not only is possible but also offers organizations the efficiency and profitability they are seeking to achieve regardless of the rules other actors are following in a competitive marketplace. Temperatism is seeking to provide a framework upon which the pursuit of profit is above all things, and the worship at the Temple of Mammon can be ceded to a demand for Doing Good for the wider society. The growing number of organizations that are pursuing purposeful endeavor above profit is increasing the prominence of integrity, morality, honesty, and honor to succeed where the money motive used to rule. It opens up the doors for all of us to call our corporate irresponsibility and corruption and demand better of business. Whistleblowers are now standing up to be counted, exposing the corporate lies and tackling corporate greed, which has led to profits at the expense of child labor, environmental pollution, manipulation of data, and deliberate price fixing. Society currently faces a fork in the road. On the one hand kindness and goodness still shine through, on the other the world is getting increasingly darker and people who would normally be law abiding are becoming more likely to be tempted to do bad things. The legal system protects property, but our society has become less secure as property ownership and materialism has increased. It may be that we have more to lose, or it may be that we have more things of monetary value worth taking but the obsession over protecting ourselves and our things above protecting others has transformed our society.

Introduction

9

The morals of society change over a period of time; what was acceptable in one era is no longer acceptable, although sometimes cultural battles, which are assumed to be won, are still waged in the dark corners of society. However, if you were to ask most people about what is right and what is wrong the fundamental truths of looking after our fellow humans remain. Someone with a conservative leaning may blame the liberal tradition for allowing morals to slip, but those from a liberal tradition will find the restrictions on individual freedom imposed by a conservative mindset morally repugnant. However, whether conservative or liberal, the central value is on societal Good even if ideas about what Good is and how it can be achieved differs. Temperatism argues that Doing Good is more than just sticking to the law of the land. It is a wholesale rejection of the pursuit of profit as the deciding factor on organizational decision making. Profit itself isn’t rejected as bad, but it is rejected as the primary driving force behind organizational activity. Instead Temperatism challenges organizations to ask why do we exist and what is the purpose behind the organization’s activity. It also demands that the organization asks itself what can we contribute to the wider society. The answers to these questions lead to an exploration of Doing Good through Business with a Social Conscience.

CHAPTER 2

Doing Good Through Business Every single social and global issue of our day is a business opportunity in disguise. —Peter Drucker

One of the consequences of fast capitalism is moral bankruptcy. ­Advocating Doing Good is derided as delusion in today’s society. People are no longer lauded for Doing Good works, but are rather chastised for being “Do Gooders.” How have we got to such a point that Doing Good is seen as a joke? And why is it that Doing Good is connected with losing something rather than something that adds value? Stennett (2017) explores the work of Peter Wohlleben, a forester in the Ruheforst who has written a book The Hidden Life of Trees. The article examines how an ancient forest in Germany provides clues as to how nature demonstrates that community involves every tree in the forest community working together. Wohlleben says Nature doesn’t always mean the survival of the fittest, as we’ve been taught. Darwin was a revolutionary in his time, but nowadays we’ve moved forward from this thinking. We now understand that many species work together to achieve success and forests are inherently social networks. He goes on to say that “It’s like communism, they support the other members of their forest community unreservedly” (Stennett 2017).

12

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

In the ancient forest the community of trees work together to support sick trees, redistribute food and nutrients between trees through intertwined root systems, and hand down wisdom from the oldest and most dominant trees to future seedlings. This is compared with modern forestry plantations where quick growing trees are grown and designed to produce timber. The result is the trees are isolated and do not work together for the health of the whole forest, and the timber is weaker and far less healthy than that found in the ancient forest. A Temperatism approach views society in the same way as the ancient forest. It is a perspective which determines that society would be stronger and healthier if, instead of exploiting others and attempting to get one better than everyone else, we worked collaboratively to ensure that every individual can succeed. This approach happens in pockets and is otherwise known as charity or philanthropy; however, there is an argument that human society can readjust to ensure that everyone thrives in the community. In a Doing Good through Business approach, shareholders would be encouraged to make decisions which factor in only the opportunity to make a sizeable profit margin, instead of making socially responsible decisions a priority. There is awareness, as this book is written, that the idealism behind Temperatism might be dismissed by many as childish. But maybe that is part of the point of the Temperatist ideology, to reignite something that is more innocent, more simplistic, and less limited in our expectations of what we are capable of. As children we can believe anything is possible, we can all be superheroes. There is no limit to human imagination, so why should we limit ourselves to a world where the only possibility is to limit the best of what we are in servitude to profit and consumerism? Is the human race not worth more than a shopping trip?

A Social Conscience Approach to Business It is worth considering the impact Darwin’s theory of evolution has had on thinking about business. Survival of the fittest slots neatly into the individualistic neoliberal narrative of people making good or bad choices and as a result it is the strongest and most intelligent who succeed. The implication being that those who are neither strong nor intelligent choose to be exploited by others. This of course negates the advantage that being



Doing Good Through Business

13

born into wealth gives to individuals. There is an inherent unfairness in a system that makes it easier to succeed when you have access to education, funds, and support that many scrabbling around in the bottom echelons of society do not have. Chaubey (2016) notes that Milton Friedman (1962) argued that organizations are obliged to act in a way that increases profits as long as the business plays by the rules. But this assumes that everyone is playing by the same rules, and that the rules are not biased in favor of one party or the other. What we can have and what we can get are the driving forces in a capitalist neoliberal democracy. How much we accumulate in regard to material belongings is a sign of our success and has begun to define what and who we are. But what if the pursuit was not for things that are external but rather what is internal. If the driving force of the human race is to be all that we can be, to achieve our potential, and release our talent, would that not lead to the betterment of all? What would happen if what we valued stopped being about material things and started being about People? Doing Good does not mean we end up with a negative balance sheet. Doing Good adds something not only to the person who is on the receiving end but also to the organization or person who is giving. There have been numerous studies that demonstrate that Doing Good is good for business. In November 2011, a researcher from the Harvard Business School and London ­Business School published The impact of a Corporate Culture of ­Sustainability on Corporate Behavior and Performance. This study tracked the ­financial performance of matched pairs of companies over an 1­ 8-year period. Ninety “high sustainability” companies, which had adopted a significant range of environmental and social policies since the early 1990s, were paired for comparison with 90  companies that were ­similar except for adopting few sustainability-orientated policies. The results showed that a £1 investment in a value-weighted portfolio of high sustainability firms in 1993 would have increased to £22.60 by the end of 2010, compared with a return of £15.40 from the ­low-­sustainability performances. The high sustainability firms also significantly outperformed on other measures, including return on ­assets and return on equity (CIPD 2012).

14

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

Aras and Crowther (2009) provided a theoretical framework for sustainable business development. They argue that four actions are required for an organization to achieve sustainable development: 1. Maintaining economic activity while giving value to the environment 2. Environmental conservation 3. Social Justice, including the elimination of poverty 4. Guaranteeing human rights as a central cultural value The framework demonstrates that shared values based upon Doing Good are beneficial not just for people and the environment but also for supporting the organization in its pursuit of delivering economic value. This provides the organization with the financial resources that it needs not only for today but also for the future. Doing Good doesn’t mean adding cost to a business that impacts profit to such a degree that shareholders will not want to invest in the organization. But it does demand a change in mindset that requires a long-term investment lens rather than one that insists on fast return on investment at the expense not only of society at large but also of the long-term performance that the organization can deliver. The Human Race has a large capacity for Doing Good. Although there will be many philosophical discussions about what constitutes Doing Good, since good is such a subjective term, most people know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. We are taught as children about fair play and the importance of sharing; we are praised for behavior that promotes harmony and disciplined for actions that are hurtful, destructive, and damaging. But somewhere along the way we lose the respect for helping others and stop caring about sharing or fair play, except when we are the ones at the receiving end of unfair practices. We grow up. There will always be people who have a warped view of the world, who will do harm and damage to others, who are “evil.” Any movement has to accept there will always be exceptions to the rule. When presented with choices, in the stark light of day, it is very easy to see which is the “good” choice and which is the “bad.” Temperatism isn’t about complex moral arguments, in fact many will decry Temperatism as being overly



Doing Good Through Business

15

simplistic. Instead, Temperatism asks humanity to consider that when we are presented with choices we make our decision not on what is most economically advantageous to ourselves but what decision is good and good for all. The tradition of liberal philosophy discusses freedom and democracy in the context of the individual as long as others aren’t harmed in the process. These traditions have been lost in the capitalist context. If the deal is good for you, the deal is good regardless of the social, economic, or environmental costs to others. There is not an adequate phrase in English to replace self-interest; “community advantage” is the best that can be offered, but still lacks the ability to conserve the person within the community interest. Self-interest is the communities’ interest in the Temperatist ideology. The individual is part of something bigger, but by being part of something bigger, we all become greater than the sum of our parts. Our Good is defined by social good. A community-based approach, focused on shared responsibility and delivering an agenda of Doing Good, will have other benefits that are currently available only to those who are part of community associations and religious groups. A sense of belonging, of being part of something bigger delivers huge benefits in regard to personal well-being and happiness. In addition, those with community ties are healthier, better nourished, and more able and willing to contribute to the social paradigm. Being part of something bigger makes us act bigger. It helps us to be better, as well as feel better. The globalization of the world economy has shrunk the world, not just in regard to our ability to communicate and trade with other nations, but also in regard to our expectations and beliefs on what Good can be done. We no longer believe that an individual can make a difference, although human history is littered with the triumphs of the human spirit over adversity.

Doing Good as a Driving Force for Human Existence Should our focus for Doing Good be connected with those people who live in the local community or exclusively Doing Good for our nation state? In such a globalized economy the answer Temperatism gives is that we should be Doing Good wherever it is possible. Doing Good can be as simple as calling on an elderly neighbor to provide companionship and

16

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

a helping hand, or as complicated as finding solutions to environmental problems or ending poverty. How much Doing Good is possible is limited only by our imaginations. Rifkin (2014) notes that research demonstrates that the primary drive of humanity “is not insatiable material wants, as economists would have us believe, but rather the quest for sociability.” For organizations this means that Doing Good is not going against what their various stakeholders are seeking to achieve, but rather they are doing good for their various stakeholders while also doing well for the organization. The premise that government or social enterprise has the monopoly on Doing Good is ridiculed by Chaubey (2016) who points out that this idea is merely “200 years old. It is a child of the enlightenment and presupposes a modern civil service and a modern fiscal system.” Mistrust in government is at an all-time high, with many rejecting leadership from the “elites” and seeking alternative methods for achieving social aims. Government does have a role to play, but organizations, as a result of organizing, are a fundamental part of our existence. Already it is apparent that those organizations that work to have a positive impact on the communities that they serve are lauded by the consumer and employees, whereas those that have a negative impact are exposed and treated with intolerance. The emphasis therefore is on organizations understanding that they need to pursue a different, more positive agenda that goes beyond simple corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies and instead is aimed at proactively delivering improvements to the society in which they operate. Rather than a “don’t be bad” approach to CSR or a paternalistic “knowing best” approach to negative externalities of business operations, the Doing Good approach emphasizes the good stewardship of resources enabling a flourishing rather than a degradation. If society changed so that the primary driving force was Doing Good, imagine how things would be different. Decisions will be made by all in society that benefit other people as well as themselves; someone is hungry, feed them; someone is roofless, house them; someone is sad, care for them. We don’t need designer handbags or shoes to live a good life. But in a world where children are abandoned or sold because their parents can no longer care for them we have to question what has happened to our moral compass. The importance of Temperatism is that it places the



Doing Good Through Business

17

power in the hands of the individual and their role in society. There is not a machine, party, or state that will decide what the individual will do, but an alignment of the individual to the contribution and value that they can add to society. Organizations and individuals will all be free to decide what their purpose is in regard to Doing Good, they will be able to use their talents, creativity, and innovation to contribute to a social construction that leads to the betterment of society. Rather than building regiments and structures to contain and standardize, Temperatism smashes the box and demands that all the possibilities of who we are be let loose, to achieve the impossible. There will always be those who will take advantage of kindness. But if the biggest danger of Temperatism as an ideology is that someone who is capable of looking after themselves decides to take advantage for self-interested purpose, then that danger is less abhorrent than the current system that leaves those who can’t look after themselves to the vagaries of the market. The choice to pursue an agenda of Doing Good shouldn’t be hard. We are all well aware of the suffering that is occurring “out there,” but out there is not some far-off place or foreign land, it is happening in the land of the free, in the rich, wealthy countries. Many might blame the current levels of poverty on the financial crisis, but the levels of poverty were increasing in the UK and United States during the years of growth. We were getting richer, except the “we” was restricted primarily to those at the top of the wealth mountain. If you feel that you are poorer, the likelihood is that you are and you have been getting that way for over 15 years. Capitalism hasn’t delivered prosperity for all and worse still it has made “being bad” acceptable. The question occurs why not? Why not replace a profit agenda for a Doing Good agenda? Change always brings fear. Fear of the unknown and of what a #changeforgood really means. After all, being self-interested, what we really want to know is, is #changeforgood going to be good for me? Are we going to be in the category of those who lose out, which must give more, do more? Will there be a personal cost to Doing Good and am I willing to pay it? One fear that should be considered is that of self-determination. What capitalism provides is a platform where, theoretically at least, if we work hard, apply our talents, and take opportunities we have the ability

18

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

to change our lives. The reality, of course, is very different. Luck and circumstance play a huge role in how self-determined we can be. Our success is based more on an accident of our birth rather than being born any more or less intelligent than the next person. Many things outside of our control determine our parenting, educational opportunities, and life opportunities. Temperatism doesn’t change self-determination. It does not suggest that private property falls into the hands of a state system, or that the state allocates living standards or controls jobs. The ideology is still based on the market principle, the change is in what the market is designed or constructed to deliver. In the capitalist sense there will be losers, those who have more will be expected to do more Doing Good than those that have little. Ironically, in a Temperatist system those who are contributing to Doing Good more will still be the most successful. Certainly the minority at the top of the wealth distribution pyramid will be affected, because Temperatism aims to remove the system that produces and allows such vast inequalities in wealth and will work toward making society more equitable. Basic Goods will have to be “paid” for somehow. Doing Good, will, in real terms have a cost associated to its fulfillment. The unanswered question is how much will it cost and how much is enough? How many properties, how many material goods, or how much money is too much in a Temperatist system? There is not a definitive answer to that question. The proportionality of wealth is what is important. If everyone has their basic Goods fulfilled, then the standard for what constitutes basic Goods will increase just as the definitions of what constitutes poverty have changed under capitalism. In religious tradition very often the figure of 10 percent is used as a tithe to the community. If you have nothing, your contribution is nothing; if you have something regardless of the amount you have you pay the same percentage. The burden you bear is proportional to what you have. As has been demonstrated by the recent “tax evasion” stories in the newspapers, there are many organizations and individuals that are benefiting from large profits and who earn large incomes who end up paying less tax, in regard to both percentage and actual amounts, than those who are earning less than a living wage. The result of the regressive tax systems adopted by the West is that the burden falls more heavily on the poor. Under Temperatism, this



Doing Good Through Business

19

pattern will be reversed and that means that if you have vast amounts of wealth, you will be “worse off.” But worse off compared to what? Having less wealth doesn’t make you poor, but if you are poor and have nothing, seeing some of that wealth redistributed, in the pursuit of Doing Good, can make the difference between life and death, hunger and having food to eat, being cold or being warm and dry. Every dollar or pound spent on improving the conditions of the poor can make a huge difference, especially if we use our ability to be efficient to effectively tackle world poverty, giving people a hand up, not just a hand out. And for those of us in the wealthy West, there is more to Doing Good than giving what we have to those who don’t. Doing Good extends to all levels of society; even those who are most wealthy can have Good done to them as well as Doing Good to others. Imagine the difference Doing Good can make to your life. We’ve all experienced those moments where someone did something Good for us. It may be someone helping you out with a bill that you are struggling to pay, or using his or her skill as a mechanic to help fix a car engine that is playing up. It might be someone giving their time to listen when you need advice, or providing a place for your kids to play safely away from the road, or it might just simply be sharing a meal. Good comes in many forms and it doesn’t always “cost” us, in fact Doing Good in the main adds something to the giver as well as to those who are receiving. One of the things that Temperatism does bring to the table is an advocacy for a different type of lifestyle. The pursuit of profit and growth has meant that even those of us that reside in the rich Western societies end up striving for more material wealth and have ended up working longer hours than ever before. Stress and anxiety have increased and the pursuit of a lifestyle which brings us happiness has been lost in the pursuit for the intangible and unreachable goal of “more.” In years gone by, there has been little public debate as to what constitutes happiness or the good life, but what is evident from our continual pursuit of all things shiny and gold is that it is not making us any happier or more fulfilled that the “golden age” of the postwar period. It is essential as individuals that we discover what constitutes a good life for ourselves. Maslow discussed self-actualization in regard to the hierarchy of needs, but there are many aspects to self-actualization that go

20

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

beyond the workplace. Finding contentment in what we turn our hand to, our leisure time and our families and friends, seems to cause a considerable strain and worry to individuals who look at Facebook status updates and compare their lives to people who seem to have it all. In a culture where consumption is rewarded, the pursuit of consumption becomes the driving force and a good life becomes attached to extrinsic rather than intrinsic notions. Temperatism is seeking changes in every area of life. In organizations the ideology seeks to promote a work environment where people are valued for the contribution they make, where they get a fair share for their commitment and hard work, and where individuals are freed to be the best that they can be, developed and invested in. Doing Good for employees removes the negativity surrounding “work” and presents an opportunity for everyone to embrace doing their bit, while at the same time rewarding the organization with that much talked about “engagement” and “discretionary behavior” that capitalism struggles to deliver because the profit motive isn’t motivating us enough.

The Business of Growth Capitalism currently pushes us toward continuous improvement to make us more efficient at producing stuff that we don’t need and utilizes our creativity to find more ways in which to extract more profit from our activities. Rifkin (2014) argues that “Capitalism’s raisin d’être is to bring every aspect of human life into the economic arena, where it is transformed into a commodity to be exchanged as property in the marketplace.” This exchange mentality impacts upon the idea of Doing Good. The general perspective is that there is a cost associated with Doing Good that is detrimental to healthy and profitable businesses. The concern therefore appears to focus not on what positive contribution business can make to society, but rather what can be exploited to have a positive contribution on the bottom line performance of the organization. If society or the environment is effected negatively in the pursuit of profit, then that is the cost of doing business. However, there is today a greater requirement for accountability. Nair (2016) ­highlights that



Doing Good Through Business

21

corporations have become a powerful and dominant institution. They reach every corner of the globe in various sizes, capabilities and influences. Their governance has influenced economies and various aspects of social landscapes. Shareholders are seen to be losing trust and ­market value has been tremendously affected. Moreover, with the emergence of globalization, there is greater deterritorialization and less of governmental control. The dominance of organizations in society means that moral bankruptcy cannot continue and demands that corporate governance must develop beyond financial strictures to one that takes account of their global stewardship responsibility. Keynes believed that over time, capitalism would lead to increased leisure time, but in countries where capitalism is at its strongest leisure time is being eroded by a society that is always on the go. In the early years of the millennium businesspeople began referring to their “Crack berry” as a reason why they were always on call. The use of smartphones and tablets is thought to be the cause of growing levels of sleep problems as people go to bed with their access to the world left on their bedside table. The digital age has bought work into the home and on holiday, as never before. The separation between work and leisure is getting blurred and “work–life balance” has become such a problem that whole books and articles are devoted to the impossible task of trying to find it and yet no one writes in your obituary “Thank you for putting in all those extra hours.” Consumption has not only led to the biggest level of personal debt, ever, but has indebted society in other ways. We are no longer constrained by feelings of wrongness regarding indebtedness and the indulgence of satisfying our cravings and desires for instant gratification. Organizations have made it possible for individuals to no longer have to wait and be patient. Financial institutions have enabled individuals to ignore the need to save up and instead have replaced a thrifty cultural norm with a hedonistic spend now pay later morality, which promises prosperity but in the long term delivers financial hardship when the credit limit runs out. Individuals have a responsibility to be responsible, but allowing financial institutions to blame the consumer is a bit like the serpent blaming Eve for eating an apple. We should resist temptation but if we are encouraged

22

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

to indulge our irresponsible desires, it is difficult to turn away, especially if doing so is somewhat abstract until the bailiffs arrive to repose the couch. The issue isn’t just something suffered on a personal level with individuals making wrong-headed decisions. In the pursuit of a better life, the generation of baby boomers has spent the wealth of future generations. They will be the last generation under capitalism to have a better standard of living than their parents and the last to be able to retire early and retire on a comfortable pension. In the meantime society continues to count the cost of their spending. Communities have broken down as people pursue work before their social needs, families break down over the lack of time together, children are impoverished because they are bought things instead of given time and love from their overstretched, overworked parents, and even the elderly suffer as they no longer are able to rely on the wider family or community to take care of them as we have become too busy with our own lives to consider the needs of others. The boomers might claim that they never had things like that when they were kids, but they laid the foundation for the consumer culture and the pursuit of more that plagues our society. One of the biggest costs of capitalism is only just being felt. What Rifkin (2014) terms as the “entropic bill for the Industrial Age” needs to be paid. The irresponsible pumping of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere, the plastic polluting our oceans, and the destruction of our biosphere are a condemnation of an economic model that is focused on wealth creation regardless of cost to the wider environment. The passivity with which the human race has approached an expanding ecological footprint that now outstrips its ability to be sustainable is frightening. What is encouraging is that many people are waking up to the destruction. Not only in changing their behaviors but also in regard to the idea of private ownership and greed. Individuals are letting go of the need for ownership as the sharing economy has expanded and there is a new emphasis being placed on pursuing companionship and nourishing social relationships. There is of course the argument that if organizations are not making a profit they cannot survive and social responsibility is negated by the need for survival. However, it is important that profit is achieved ethically. Carroll (1991) developed a pyramid of responsibility in which there



Doing Good Through Business

23

was a hierarchy of responsibilities that could only be achieved if the one before was achieved: • • • •

Economic—Profitability Legal—Playing by the rules Ethical—Do what is right Philanthropic—Contribute to the community

The implication of course is that if you are not profitable it is okay to partake in illegal acts, be unethical, and make no contribution to the wider society and community. The question that remains unanswered by the model, of course, is how much profit is enough to begin acting philanthropically? Temperatism inverts the pyramid and posits that by acting in the interests of the community profits will follow. The focus on profits also ignores sustainability and the mortgaging of the future in pursuit of profit for today. Tax cuts are great if you don’t have to pay the interest on government borrowing in your lifetime. Large bonuses for corporate executives today are of no consequences if the executive is going to leave the corporation before it goes bankrupt. The business of growth ignores sustainability because it is focused on achieving a profit target for this quarter. What happens to shareholder value in 20 years’ time is of little consequence to the executives who will have moved on by the time the consequences of their short-termism become apparent. This exploration of the “good life” is not to make us feel guilty for where we are today, but to point out that the pursuit of profit and growth hasn’t led to a better, happier, or more fulfilled society. Yes, individuals do get pleasure from work, especially if they are lucky enough to be in the small percentage who work in jobs that use their talent and release their potential, but for the majority work has become a “nose to the grindstone” existence, which neither provides for their needs and wants nor delivers fulfillment. Making it easy to do Good is to help everyone, in all strata in society to find their life balance, whatever that may be. For many it will be reclaiming time with their family, for others it will be having the time to explore hobbies or activities. Slowing things down, jumping off the hamster

24

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

wheel that Capitalism demands we run on in order to keep up with the demand for growth at all costs, enriches our lives, even if we have “less” of what we now think is important. It is something that the younger generations joining the workforce today are beginning to understand. Many millennials are rejecting the corporate roles and things, instead focusing on experiences and participation.

The Business of Doing Good Organizations play an essential role in engaging with individuals and communities in a meaningful way. They can have a profound impact on human needs and the wider societal requirements of the world we live in. Within a capitalist system, the determination of an organization or wealthy individual to engage in a program of Doing Good is often labeled as philanthropic, which is, as the word suggests, considered to be in some way benevolent. Mendel and Brudney (2014) say, “The intellectual thread casting the purpose of philanthropy in America as a driver of social change promoting the welfare, happiness, and culture of its citizens still applies to philanthropy in the twenty-first century.” It suggests a purposeful decision by the individual or management team of the organization to have stewardship principles and values that set them apart from normal business. In organizations itself a whole stream of policy, named CSRs, adds “Doing Good” by society and individuals as an initiative to be enacted and requiring the organization to put aside resources from normal operations to do so. Just think about that for a moment. The normal ways of running businesses are not Doing Good as an automatic day-to-day running of the business, so they have to develop policies and procedures to build Doing Good into the system . . . and they earn respect for doing so. Chaubey (2016) states that “Some scholars hold that corporate social responsibility is truly ‘social’ when a corporate entity sees that no harm is caused to bystanders by their business operations and thus care for their environment.” This goes beyond legal and regulatory frameworks and moves into the realms of avoiding doing harm. There is a significant move in business circles to reduce the amount of regulation that businesses have to contend with. In the UK, this is manifested itself as a



Doing Good Through Business

25

financial promise, not an increase in the cost of regulation; in the United States, a promise of one in two in terms of the quantity of regulation. However, we must ask ourselves why regulation exists in the first place. Despite our frustration with “red tape” there is a profound and unarguable reason for regulation to exist, and that is because organizations do not self-regulate. Laws are usually enacted as a result of corporate abuses. The 2018 General Data Protection Regulation data regulations have been introduced to stop organizations mining and cashing on personal data, when the individual whose data are being mined doesn’t even know what is being done with it. If organizations using that data hadn’t done so with nefarious intentions the regulation would never had been enacted. The same drivers also led to the equal opportunities act, various employment laws, and health and safety legislation. Each statutory and regulatory act is actually a reaction to organizations behaving badly. Frederick (1960) introduced the Iron Law of Responsibility in which he argued that “social responsibilities of businessmen need to be commensurate with their social power.” Organizations are probably the most socially powerful body in our society, and in some ways it could be argued that they have too much social power. But it is this social power that makes them so important to Temperatism. It is this social power that can be used to transform our society and the world for the better. There is evidence that Doing Good is good for Business. Chernev and Blair (2015) demonstrated that socially responsible behavior drives consumers to change their perceptions about how a product is performing, with evidence to show that Doing Good translates into an evaluation by the consumer that the organization is doing well. Meyer (2015) notes that doing well “is usually used as a synonym of flourishing, thriving, blooming, prospering, and so forth. Nevertheless in a business context it usually refers to being financially successful.” Thus by contributing to society, the organization develops a shared value with the customer and stakeholder delivering an improvement in bottom-line performance. Empirical research demonstrates that these benefits are sustainable, securing the future viability of the organization not just for shareholders but also for the community, environment, and society as a whole. If the motivate is pro-social then the outputs are pro-business. However, although profits are a prerequisite of Doing Good, profit-based motives negatively effect

26

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

doing well benefits. Doing Good and doing well can coexist but economic decisions that bear fruit in the short term may need to be subordinate to the mission of Doing Good to guarantee long-term sustainability. But what if Temperatism were to push us toward continuous improvement to make us more effective at producing stuff that we do need and utilizing our creativity to find more ways in which our activities are consistently delivering a Doing Good agenda that everyone would benefit? True, there might be less designer “it” bags and possibly fewer millionaire mansions, there may be less things for you to dust in your house, and less floor space for you to clean. You may limit yourself to one family car and get to know your neighbors and colleagues better as you car share more and obviously benefit from smaller bills. Rifkin (2014) notes that the increase in the sharing economy is already having an effect on car ownership as individuals take part in car share schemes. Organizations are pervasive in human society, what Temperatism posits is not to get rid of business but utilize the ability of organizations to foster creativity, agility, innovative capability and provide individuals with meaningful work to promote an agenda based on universal ideals. The consequences of these are to remove the “negative footprint” that business leaves behind and instead provide a “positive handprint” to ensure that all human endeavor thrives (Fry 2017). It is important that we do not limit the ideology of Temperatism to a wish to return to a Golden Age or a fantasy for utopia. There is no golden age of capitalism and we haven’t yet imagined the possibility of what utopia could be beyond our understanding of what is. Temperatism aims to create a Golden Age of humanity, one where we actually care about each other, where we can be the very best that we can be, both in work and at play. Individuals working together are greater than the sum of their parts. It is not that the world does not have enough resources to ensure that every person’s basic Goods are cared for, it is just that we haven’t worked out a way in which that wealth distribution can happen. We need to treasure the environment in which we live and appreciate the limitations that stewardship places on us. Sometimes when contemplating a change of ideologue that is embedded culturally, socially, and economically, there is a fear that the mountain will be impossible to climb. This book is not written without full consciousness of the obstacles that face such a choice



Doing Good Through Business

27

to change and not least the glaring hole that is the economic system in which we operate and political machines that thrive on division and conflict. However, capitalism has proved that systems can be broken and overcome. So the only impossibility is the limit of our ability to imagine and construct a new system that works for humanity and makes Doing Good easy. If we can imagine it, it is possible. And as Sherlock Holmes likes to say, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

CHAPTER 3

We’re All Responsible The choices human beings make today will determine the world in which they live tomorrow. —Des Jardins

This book is written during Trump’s second year in office. Some readers may be Trump supporters, some may not. Political stripes actually don’t matter. What matters is how someone who causes such division in America and the rest of the world has managed to secure a role that is so influential. You can blame it on the evangelical Southern Baptists, the white nationalists, or the rich oligarchs in Russia, but not all Trump voters are racist. Not all Trump voters are haters. The vast majority of Trump voters are ordinary folk, getting on with getting on. They could be labeled as those people who had enough. The “had enough’s” work hard and feel somehow like those in power have let them down. Their bills are going up, their security is tenuous, and they suffer from immense inequality in terms of effort-reward. The majority of people who voted for Trump were more likely to be seeking change and many of them didn’t like Trump, but they liked Clinton less. In the UK the same equation played out. The media made much of the retired white people voting against immigration and blaming it somehow on seeking a return to glory days. First, it seems to ignore the fact that that same group of people likely voted the UK into Europe in the first place. Second, a lot of people who voted against the EU had had enough of being told by bureaucrats what they should and should not be doing. It’s all very well for the “elites” to argue logic and rational

30

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

arguments of something as complex as the UK’s relationship with the EU but what they fail to understand is that when someone has had enough, rational logic doesn’t apply because they have been playing sensible and the result still smarts. Inequality isn’t logical. It doesn’t make sense that with enough food in the world, half the world starves while the other half throws food away. Logic fails when some folk live in big houses with more rooms and bathrooms than they can possibly use, while down the street people are living on the street. Rational thinking can’t explain how the human race has developed cures to the most complex of diseases and yet in some parts of the world people are dying unnecessarily because of lack of basic health care. Most people have compassion. Most people care, even Trump. The beliefs and values that someone has will determine how they approach solutions to the problems in the world. Just because beliefs differ, it doesn’t mean they lack care for the problem, they just see that there is a different way to get there.

Our Role in Perpetuating Inequality Temperatism is based on the idea that humanity has the potential to cooperate, collaborate, assist, and contribute to the greater good. Doing Good isn’t a new concept, it has been part of business ethics since the 1960s and has fed into the debate regarding the responsibility of organizations to contribute to “non-economic areas of society that include the welfare of the employees, customers, other stakeholders of the entire business system, and environmental concerns” (Ghazzawi and Palladini 2014). However, an underlying truth of Temperatism is that by our actions we all contribute individually to inequality in society, wittingly or unwittingly. It is possible to say that we have had enough, but our problems are caused when societal norms are dictated by the competitive mindset that puts pressure on individuals to keep up with the Jones’ and seek abundance at the cost of others. The challenges that we face today, “population growth, globalization, world health crisis, poverty, the crisis of the environment, natural disasters, climate change, water and food shortages, and diseases” effect all of us (Ghazzawi and Palladini 2014). Equally all



We’re All Responsible

31

of us add to the size of the challenge by failing to change our own behaviors and take responsibility for making the necessary changes. Profit, growth, and abundance should be the result of doing the right things, rather than an outcome pursued for itself. We are responsible for pursuing this agenda in our own lives, in choosing to “make a living” that makes us miserable rather than pursue a course, which may provide for all we need for a comfortable and good life, but little more in terms of material wealth. This responsibility is a choice between pursuing an agenda, which has no possible end, as acquisition and want are endless, or to stop when our needs are fulfilled. Of course for many in the poverty trap, capitalism doesn’t provide them with a choice. They are forced to work longer and endure exploitation to try and meet their basic needs of food and shelter. But for those at the top it is ridiculous that top executives are working one hundred hour weeks in order to afford large estates and fast cars and pay for holidays that they don’t enjoy because they can’t switch off from work. Furthermore, they dream of “retiring” to a more relaxed pace of life, while barely living during their working lives. Although Capitalism has succeeded in achieving immeasurable levels of wealth creation, it has failed to create the civilized utopia that was predicted by Keynes and Smith and has left our society worse off and more morally bankrupt than ever before. Populist leaders such as Trump, Farage, and Marine Le Pen were made possible because of the cult of celebrity. Even in Christian circles, the mega churches and evangelical Southern Baptists follow the cult of celebrity preachers, prophets, and healers. Readers who are not Christians may not be familiar with the cause célèbre in the evangelical world, anymore than someone who avoids celebrity magazines may be unfamiliar with the Kardashians or the Real Housewives, but in every circle of society, such as business, politics, medicine, conservation, and so on, there are “names” who have fans, who travel miles to hear them speak, who devour their latest books, or who listen to their latest recording, be it TV, radio, or podcast. At the heart is people believing that an individual is more powerful than the collective. It is capitalism personified. Everything centers on the individual and we begin to believe that if only we were more like, or copied, or followed that our problems would disappear. Our societal value structure puts more value on the singular great I am, rather than the power of the collective.

32

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

The inevitability of inequality in human society is a core tenant of capitalism, but historically it is equality that is the norm: For over 90 per cent of our existence as human beings we lived, almost exclusively, in highly egalitarian societies. . . . A number of psychological characteristics would have been selected to help us manage in egalitarian societies. These are likely to include our strong conception and valuation of fairness, which makes it easier for people to reach agreement without conflict when sharing scarce resources. Visible even in young children, our concern for fairness sometimes seems so strong that we might wonder how it is that social systems with great inequality are tolerated. ­(Wilkinson and Pickett 2010) The focus on maximizing profit in organizations has a detrimental effect on the ability of society to promote more altruistic motives, and instead create a divide between the haves and have nots. Pursuing equality is not the same as pursuing an agenda of sameness and attempting to get everyone to fit into the same-sized Temperatist mold. Difference is still celebrated, most notably in the uniqueness of each and every individual on the planet. Equality in Temperatism is linked to the pursuit of Basic Goods and Doing Good and the requirement that we do value each human life equally and that every individual’s potential is equally important to that of someone else. Concerning infrastructure, Temperatism aims to help make things more equal in regard to opportunity, education, and necessities we need in life to pursue our potential, to reduce the gap between the haves and the have nots, with the objective of producing an outcome where we all have. What has been interesting about the historical demise of communist and socialist states is that the perception of those outside of a capitalist system, or those who live in poor societies rather than the “rich” West, is that they compare and contrast what they have or don’t have with other people and nations. When the wall came down in East Germany and later when Eastern bloc nations joined the EU the belief was that the citizens of those countries would see an end to poverty and want. Socialism didn’t fail just because it was a bad system, it failed because it didn’t account for self-interest.



We’re All Responsible

33

Perhaps the greatest failing of humanity is the fact that unequal wealth distribution has led to a situation where there is unnecessary suffering in the world. In regard to food production, today, there is enough food in the world to enable each person to have what sustenance they need and to avoid starvation. We can view the plight of the hungry as a result of scarcity of resources in their country and shrug our shoulders in a manner that suggests that it is a sad but true fact that some people will starve. Or we can take a wider view and question how it is that in the West we have an epidemic of obesity, while children die for lack of a decent meal. Believing that there is nothing we can do about it is not an acceptable response. Instead, we should ask ourselves how we can address the problem of lack and want to ensure that no one suffers from starvation while there is enough food available. In the West the advantages we enjoy compared to those living in third world countries are those things that we take for granted: We live in houses where clean water gets piped in—we do not need to remember to add Chlorine to the water supply every morning. The sewerage goes away on its own—we do not actually know how. We can (mostly) trust our doctors to do the best they can and can trust the public health system to figure out what we should and should not do. We have no choice but to get our children immunized – public schools will not take them if they aren’t—and even if we somehow manage to fail to do it, our children will probably be safe because everyone else is ­immunized. . . . And perhaps most important, most of us do not have to worry where our next meal will come from. In other words, we rarely need to draw upon our limited endowment of self-control and decisiveness, while the poor are constantly being required to do so. (Banerjee and Duflo 2012) From the basis of those steeped in the doctrine of laissez-faire, ­Temperatism can be criticized for being overly paternalistic. It is easy for those who have wealth and an army of people to take care of their every whim to preach about the importance of people taking responsibility for their lives. But responsibility is not the same as opportunity.

34

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

Temperatism is focused on providing what is needed to allow people to have the opportunity to be all that they can be. In the West we benefit from infrastructure, which takes care of our Basic Goods to such a degree that we don’t even notice that it is being provided. When bad weather or system failure leaves us without electricity, running water, or access to the Internet we bleat about the length of time it takes for government and service providers to get things up and running because it interrupts our ability to function. Yet we continue with the belief that those living in third world countries should be able to take responsibility for grasping opportunities for their own lives, without access to the same infrastructure that we can’t live without. Remembering that capitalism is a way of thinking or acting rather than a thing in its own right is important to understanding our role and responsibility in the way things are today. Nonet et  al. (2016) use the concept Response-Able to define our ability to “respond in an aware and conscious manner, encompassing interaction, knowledge-gathering, and decision-making. . . .” We may not have created the system, we may not even actively take part in it, but the way businesses operate, the way we live our lives, and our values and our beliefs are shaped by the economic system that operates in Western society. Businesses need to incorporate socially responsible behaviors to ensure that individuals within the organization are self-aware of their personal impact and “guided by clear moral values, as well as the courage to stand for them.” (Nonet et al. 2016) The issue is that today self-interest is no longer just the pursuit of the greedy. Somewhere along the way in the last 30 years we have slid from being in a position where “being selfish” was morally reprehensible and peer pressure put paid to excesses of self-interest to it not only being acceptable to pursue self-interest but actively encouraged. The responsibility for the state of the nations is not purely limited to those at the top but the responsibility of us all for making it okay. It is important that each individual takes responsibility to be respectful of and seek to understand others. Business has a key role in developing a response which is practiced in a way that is economically vibrant enough to address the real needs of billions of people, yet ecologically informed so that the earth’s capacity to support life is not diminished by that activity, and



We’re All Responsible

35

ethically sensitive enough that human dignity is not lost or violated by the process. (Ghazzawi and Palladini 2014) Being participative, inclusive, and empowering isn’t just an employment engagement requirement, but a determination to hold everyone to account for our shared responsibility both at an individual and organizational level. The truth is that human beings are both selfish and selfless. We are both. For all the positive things that can be attributed to the human race, so too the opposite is equally true—good and bad, violent and gentle, social and antisocial. What makes humanity different is that we have an ability to choose. Where our culture lies is a choice. It represents a chosen reality and whether we like it or not we all have a responsibility for where our society lies right now. It may be that we are not active in pursuing self-interest and harming others, but our responsibility may lie in our inactivity and passivity in the face of societal ills. Most individuals when reading about Temperatism will agree that Doing Good is a good thing. The premise of putting people first chimes with our embedded morality of our notion of what it means to be human. There may be some, a minority, who find the notion of Doing Good abhorrent and incomprehensible, but regardless of rank, status, or culture, Doing Good appeals to human beings. If the heart of Temperatism chimes with most humans, and there is agreement that it is the right thing to pursue, then a concerted effort is required to lift the ideology from the pages of this book and transform it from rhetoric to reality. There is a lot of wealth in the world; poverty occurs not because of lack of resources, or a lack of possible sources of provision, but rather because of an unequal distribution of wealth. The way in which we make our living is an expression of our values and the value that we place on other human beings. The choices we make in regard to what we consume is an indication of whether how we use our wealth is good or bad. The purchasing of products which have been manufactured in sweatshops or through the exploitation of child labor is not worth the low price we pay and many consumers try to make ethical choices. But very often we deny our values and our ethics pursuing a course of action which cause suffering and harm, much in the same way that a smoker chooses to deny the

36

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

damage they are doing to their body. We shake our heads at the terrible tragedy of child poverty, famine, or victims of war and yet think nothing of how our choices contribute to the continuation of harm and hurt. This does not mean that we all need to walk around in sackcloth and live on gruel. But it does mean that there needs to be a change in attitude in regard to the role of wealth and money in our society. Temperatism challenges us to closely examine the way that we choose to live and demand better of ourselves. We can continue to live under the yoke of oppression determining to believe that we are, as the Capitalists claim, at the mercy of our basic instincts to hunt or be hunted. Alternatively, we can choose to live out the belief that civilization proves that humanity can rise above our base animal instincts and choose to overturn our baser instincts of self-interest. A belief that if lived fully will not just be about faith but a walking out of humanity living the truth of its nature. The potential for humanity to cooperate, collaborate, assist, and contribute to the greater good is unique to our species. In the animal kingdom there is little capacity for the weak to be given support from the strong. Survival of the fitness is more than a handy footnote in the description of the theory of evolution, but when applied to humanity we defy the rules of nature. We can and we choose to care about other members of our society, to provide protection to those in need and refuse to accept that we have to be diminished by our circumstances. Seu (2018) argues that the public’s connectedness with humanitarian issues can be sustained through appropriate emotions, understand, and ways of caring that they are familiar with and which they practise in their daily lives . . . long-term psycho-social connectedness should be emotionally manageable, cognitively meaningful and morally significant. Although we have potential to be cruel and aggressive, our need to protect is a strong driving force behind the human psyche. Our dependency on others, both in regard to our own growth and development and also in regard to our levels of well-being, requires cooperation and mutuality to be part of a repertoire beyond simple self-interestedness. When it comes to pursuing the betterment of humanity we have the potential



We’re All Responsible

37

to be our greatest ally and our greatest enemy. The hurt and pain that inequality inflicts on individuals and groups in society through exclusion and neglect is in conflict with our natural sense of affinity, collaboration, and intrinsic sense of fair play and justice. The dysfunction that we are currently experiencing in our society is a direct result of the inequality within our society. We don’t have to live in a society that is fearful of the future, but instead, together we can realize the very best of humanity.

Building the Momentum for Change History teaches us that momentum for change doesn’t happen overnight. Even seemingly sudden acts of revolution are in fact a result of an evolving mindset change that has occurred over a period of time. Doing Good isn’t going to happen overnight, it won’t happen on Monday because everyone in humanity will wake up with the same thought that today is the day. Instead, it will take many small acts of Doing Good by individuals and enterprises to build momentum for change. Like a smile which is infectious, it begins with one person deciding to do something. The truth is that Doing Good happens all the time. The public are generous and genuinely engaged in helping others in need. Disaster relief, or responding in times of crisis, such as individuals opening up their homes, or driving people home after the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017, or the wave of donations which poured in to support survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire, is not unusual. They are a common occurrence. The issue of course is that they are in response to something terrible happening and once the initial disaster response is over the support tails off. Temperatism is about engaging individuals in maintaining a meaningful connectedness with humanitarian issues over time. The difficulty is that in a time of 24/7 media coverage of disasters compassion fatigue sets in. As the chapter is being written the volcano in Hawaii is forcing many residents to flee their homes and lose their livelihoods. It is not clear if there is any disaster relief or charitable support going on; there is a presumption that there is, but there is no call to action to get involved. The ongoing war in Syria barely gets a mention and yet millions of people have been traumatized and replaced, and if anything the propaganda war has meant that many are suspicious of any claims of chemical weapon attack. The outrage at such

38

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

a tragic loss of human life, at the huge amount of destructions just is not present. It is barely registering with human consciousness, because it has been going on for so long. The key consideration is where responsibility begins and finishes. Seu (2018) posits that for many people there is a requirement that they are protected emotionally. If we examined disasters, crisis, and crimes against humanity in too much detail it would be devastating. However, there are also differing perspectives about where responsibility for others lie, “members of the public also differed in term of where they felt their responsibility stopped. Some felt that only they, their close family and their community were their responsibility; others believed in universal responsibility and brotherhood” (Seu 2018). However, responding to need isn’t just about crisis but about everyday actions and choices that we make as individuals, whether it is choices we make in regard to our own behaviors to ensure we treat people with kindness, are socially responsible, and reduce our own individual impact on the environment or making choices that invite others to play their part. Whether as an employee or as a consumer, as individuals it may be that we think we can have little impact, but if each individual makes a choice that places an onus on organizations to step up and be socially responsible then our small part has contributed to the bigger picture significantly. Small changes made over a long period of time have resulted in what Barkoski and Shahzad (2017) identified as “corporate social performance,” going on to say that firms are confronted with the delicate balancing act of adequately addressing demands of the primary stakeholders of the firm—­shareholders, employees, buyers, suppliers and local c­ ommunities—to ensure a smooth bi-directional flow of resources, while designing and acting upon policies and processes to tackle social issues which are important, and even noble, goals for the firm. The current blinkered approach to solving our problems, with the emphasis being on redesigning capitalism to be “good” while still pursuing a destructive profit agenda, is something that we must all challenge. The senselessness of growth and acquisition as a purpose in and of itself is our responsibility to challenge and change—and if it doesn’t the instability



We’re All Responsible

39

and inequality within our society will only increase. Our reliance on the market to save us from austerity neglects the possibility of each individual being able to contribute their part in bringing about real change that will last beyond the next economic cycle of boom and bust. Morality and the human condition continue to be excluded from the agenda. Purposefulness is dismissed as little more than a fairground sideshow, with scant regard of social cohesion at a local, national, and global level. Yet within all this frippery is a deep desire for something better.

Tackling Inequality Is Everyone’s Responsibility The current cultural assumption, which suggests that self-interest is the only thing that we can pursue, is wrong. Capitalism claims to have improved the material conditions of our life, but one unexpected outcome of the system, at least for Adam Smith, is that want is insatiable. Reiter (2016) states that “Some of the largest and most successful corporations and their executives have been accused of focusing on financial performance at the expense of social welfare or the preservation of the natural environment.” The government and organizational position of “growth” is good and the acquisition of more material goods and more money has become the central pillar of society in which we reside. But the pursuit of money as an end in itself cannot be considered a serious or permanent endeavor because the only purpose of money is to spend it. The public is often aware that organizations break the law or that actions are deplorable. The question we should be asking ourselves is what will we spend our money on. It is our actions, our greed, and our insatiable appetite for material possessions that fuels and drives the capitalist ideal. The credit crunch demonstrated more clearly than ever before that the capitalist system generates little more than a morally bankrupt pursuit of acquisition developed from a motive of greed. It is easy for those impacted by the austerity measures currently being applied by Western governments to blame the banks for our woes, but it is the customers of banks that gave the banks “toxic” debts and mortgages, it is the people who allowed themselves to borrow money that they could not afford to repay, to buy “things” that provided the platform for wealth and poverty to develop like a cancer in the system.

40

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

Not that long ago “never a borrower or lender be” was a central societal norm. In countries such as Belgium the amount you can borrow is tied very strictly to your earnings ratios. But since the 1980s there has been a change in attitude where the Wall Street “greed is good” has embedded itself into our thinking and our actions. In our history the love of money was abhorrent and was rightly believed to be destructive. Stories such as those of Midas serve as a warning to society of the problems that the love of money can create. What is fascinating when studying poverty is not so much that poverty exists but the choices those in poverty or indebtedness make which exacerbates their situation. Fortunately the generation that has watched in horror as their parents have worked themselves to exhaustion during the 1980s and 1990s is beginning to make different choices. Many of the younger generation entering the workforce today are choosing a balance between work and enjoying more leisure time, women are learning that they don’t have to have it all, but instead are able to choose between work or being a stay-at-home mother, fathers are breaking out of the shackles of career provider and realizing that they can take an equal role in childcare, and many families are “downsizing” so they don’t have to work every hour God sends to afford unnecessary luxuries. But these choices are not available to those at the bottom end of the spectrum. What is apparent for those at the bottom end of wealth distribution is that they are required to work longer and longer hours simply to stand still and avoid falling into poverty, the poverty trap is most notable for those working in service industries or in our inner cities where living costs are higher than that which can be afforded by the minimum wage. It is in these areas of societies’ poorest and most vulnerable that big cultural shifts need to take place and where Doing Good can make the biggest difference to everyday life experience. The individualistic economics that Thatcher and Reagan introduced forever changed the responsibility toward the most vulnerable in society and the responsibility mentality of those in the welfare trap. In the UK there are two sides to the Welfare coin. There is disgust at those who live “on benefit” as a lifestyle choice, because to leave the benefit system they will find themselves worse off than living on the state. There is a sense of entitlement and belief that there is a “right” to living in state-provided



We’re All Responsible

41

housing and receipt of benefits without ever having worked or contributed to the system from which they take. On the other side the welfare state doesn’t provide enough to keep the old and infirm or the most vulnerable safe, secure, and with the requirements for a healthy and good life. One of the biggest moral shames of the capitalist society is the lack of care and consideration of the most vulnerable in society, most notably of children, the elderly, and those with mental health problems. Recent changes in the UK benefit system target the most vulnerable in society. Individuals who are too sick to work have been forced to go through a system of review that has left many without the income they need to live; the result is a rise in the reliance of individuals on nongovernment charity such as food banks and soup kitchens. While the “elites” think nothing of claiming for taxpayer-funded expenses for lunches and breakfasts that they can more than afford on their salaries, the same amount spent on a single lunch is being taken from a disabled individual’s monthly benefit forcing them into food poverty. It is true that there are people who scam the system, but punishing everyone for the failure to manage the few and creating a false narrative over the benefit cheats forces those in genuine need into even greater peril when they are at their most vulnerable. If average wages were to rise, as a result of employers giving employees a fair share of profit generated, then there would be less chance of people looking to the state to provide for their basic needs. In work poverty levels are scandalous. If working fulltime hours does not provide someone with a living wage, then something has certainly gone wrong with the system. It’s not a case of low skilled versus high skilled, it is a case of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. If the agenda in organizations and society as a whole were Doing Good, then mechanisms would be in place to aid people in transition from unemployed to employable. Organizations are in an absurd situation where they bemoan the education system and lack of skills, yet don’t invest in training their employees for fear that individuals will take their skills and knowledge they have acquired to a competitor. Individuals can’t afford to invest in themselves or don’t have the job security to engage in long-term skills and knowledge development, but equally they don’t receive the training that they need to update the skills and knowledge they need to progress in an organization to get to a career level that will ensure that they receive training investment. A possible approach

42

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

using Temperatsim, would take a framework different from the current form of state-provided training that employers bemoan does not provide individuals with the skills they need to fill vacancies but instead organizations creating programs for the unemployed and vulnerable, which means that they get not only gainful employment but also the training and support needed to make them productive members of society. In return the organization will get the skilled employee it needs and achieves the purpose of Doing Good. Zero unemployment was abandoned as an economic policy in the 1980s, but the focus on individualism had the reverse effect on welfare to that which was expected. As the quality of welfare provision shifted from a universal to a market-based model, the growth in those dependent on welfare has increased. The dispossessed, homeless, and criminal classes have also experienced a period of growth. The traditional societal support mechanisms were lost as centers of employment changed and were replaced by a belief that the wealth would “trickle down” from the rich to the poor. The problem is that 30 years later it is apparent that the poor have got poorer as the rich have got richer; but the rich do not see it as their “job” to help those who are worse off than they are. Social exchange theory demonstrates that the justice climate that we find ourselves in impacts overall group behavior. If groups are treated unfairly they begin to believe “that they are undervalued  .  .  . and engage in retaliatory or retributive behaviors” (Thornton and Rupp 2016). Unfairness and injustice therefore contribute to society experiencing a greater degree of deviant behaviors. Conversely, fairness and just treatment results in pro-social behaviors. By enabling more people to become productive members of society, through support mechanisms both from the state and from organizations it is possible to eradicate the race to the bottom that Western society is currently engaged in, in regard to deskilling and devaluing the productive potential of all individuals within society. At the same time, individuals must begin to understand the responsibility that they have in releasing their own potential and becoming a productive part of a society that values them and their talent potential. The inequalities within the education system are probably the basis for the greatest level of wasted potential than in any other part of society. Despite the best efforts of teachers, the school system in the UK is riddled



We’re All Responsible

43

with inconsistencies in regard to provision of facilities and opportunities for children to learn about their true potential. In schools, which provide education to the wealthy, the children of rich children are afforded every opportunity to explore their true potential. But in the schools in the poorest areas in our country, there is a struggle to provide education to even the most basic standards. The amount of talent wasted in the early years of life, through individuals not being engaged with the system of learning offered and being dismissed through misjudgment, is criminal. Parents may be unable or unwilling to support children in their learning, teachers write off difficult pupils, or students used to rejection decline the hand of support offered by teachers attempting to reach out. The shame of the situation is that those pupils who drop out could have been the person who had a significant contribution to make for the betterment of humanity. For each victim of an unequal social and education system we may have lost one of the greatest minds and talents of their generation. But we don’t know whether this is the case, because we have created an educational infrastructure where we will never find out. What is worse is that the positions they may have filled, had they been offered the opportunity to reach their potential, are taken by individuals who may lack talent to do that job and that is assuming that dropouts manage to find work and become productive members of society, rather than becoming involved in criminality or living on benefits. For many in the wealthy echelons of society, there is a concern that Doing Good and contributing to social good will result in laziness for those on the receiving end. The biggest fear of many in regard to suggestions of a social-interest rather than a self-interest approach is that of motivation and recognition of “social loafing” (Smith and Haslam 2012) when individuals do not pull their weight or do their “bit” in regard to contributing their effort to that of “Doing Good.” The bitter recrimination is whether organizations and individuals within a society should support those who are unwilling rather than unable to look after themselves. The Temperatism ideology, however, finds that a social psychology perspective is useful. Our behavior is a result of our own mindsets, but cannot be separated from the social context in which we find ourselves. We identify with the social cues in regard to what is or is not acceptable, as well as subscribing to individual notions of acceptability based on faith,

44

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

political affiliations, or social groups to which we belong. The problem of “taking advantage” is a capitalist problem caused by the capitalist pursuit of self-interest. As individuals turn inward rather than consider the external costs of their behavior, in the same way that organizations turn inward and ignore the external costs of their operations, the only person who the individual needs to worry about is themselves. In the UK, in recent years this has resulted in a sense of individuals having the right to welfare support, benefit, and social housing without any of the responsibility of contributing to the society from which they are taking. Temperatism centers on the moral duties that we have toward each other. Doing Good creates a social context in which the individual must consider their actions in the wider context in which they reside. Creating a context where everyone has responsibility as well as providing the individual right to basic “Good” ensures that what is taken must be balanced with what is being given in return. The internal and external costs become part of the same balance sheet. During the Victorian era there was an assumption that discipline and motivation were all that was needed in order for individuals to work their way out of poverty. But it is too easy to dismiss the impact our current circumstances have on our ability to help ourselves. For those of us that live in the West, it is all too easy to sit on the sofa, where we are protected and secure in our centrally heated homes, and blame government corruption and ineffectiveness of overseas aid as a reason why we shouldn’t try to make things better. In our own country we demonize the unemployed and benefit claimants as lazy and avoid the homeless as drug-addled or drunken outcasts, while all the time excusing our inaction as the problems of poverty not being our responsibility. However, it is difficult for those at the bottom of a pit to climb out and begin running, if they lack the means or the energy to do so because they are busy just trying to survive the day. If we want each person to take responsibility for their place in society, then it is our responsibility to care enough to take action to help them get to the starting line. Temperatism is based on the premise that sustainable growth is possible if humanity is given the best opportunity to be all that it can be. It assumes that when everyone has access to education, have their basic nutritional needs met, are given opportunities to have their health care needs



We’re All Responsible

45

fulfilled and enjoy security, then the confidence will be there to enjoy the fruits of releasing the full potential of humanity. There is unlikely to be any singular moment where an explosive ignition of human potential and societal cohesion will occur, but rather a gradual but deliberate convergence of social capital that delivers a result greater than the individual parts. Criminality, violence, and pain are unlikely to disappear, but there will be an erosion of its dominance in our lives. We may never be the recipients of a return on investment of the actions we take in Doing Good, but we will experience Good as a result of Doing Good ourselves. A kinder society seems at first like a fanciful notion based on an utopian society, but we have all been on the receiving end of kindness and know the impact that it has in that moment of time. To live in a world where kindness is not random and not unusual but part of who we are benefits not just those who are in desperate need of kindness in order to live but also those who have plenty but live in fear of having nothing. Poverty is not a new phenomenon; it has been part of human society since the beginning of civilization. In this respect, the agenda for Temperatism is based on the long game. If we each take responsibility for Doing Good and determine to change our own pursuit of material wealth then change stops being theoretical and begins impacting lives positively, definitely, and without borders. Collectively we are capable with the depth of human creativity, inventiveness, and adaptability at our disposal to adjust our attitude to seek wealth not just for ourselves but for others too. We know that Temperatist attitudes already exist in society; philanthropy, charity, community spirit, and so on are already in abundant supply, especially at local levels. The requirement is to invest that spirit of togetherness in the everyday, to pervade society at every level of society, to invade boardrooms and change the purpose of organizations, and change the hearts and minds of the money changers and the movers and shakers. It may be sometime until Temperatism reaches a societal zenith but it is in the ascendency. People are craving for change and have demonstrated a willingness to join together and contribute to a significant moment in history where society changes forever. It begins with small acts of Doing Good to build momentum. Ideas may be big, or they may be small, but each of us, individually, can take responsibility for our own part in working toward a fairer and more equal society where Doing Good is just the way things are.

CHAPTER 4

Systems Thinking The point is not that Jesus was a good guy who accepted everybody, and thus we should do the same (though that would be good). Rather, his teachings and behaviour reflect an alternative social vision. Jesus was not talking how about how to be good and how to behave within the framework of a domination system. He was a critic of the domination system itself. —Marcus Borg

In the film In Time, inequality in society is explored using time instead of money. It examines what would happen if everyone stopped growing old at the age of 25. Barring accident, death only occurs when an individual’s time runs out. Time is earned in the same way we earn income. It can also be stolen, lost, and confiscated. Transactions are also conducted using time. A one-night stay in a luxury hotel costs 2 months of time, a luxury car 50 years, a bus journey 2 hours. When time is redistributed among the poor in a Robin Hood-type escapade, prices are artificially inflated in the ghetto so the poor are no better off. The whole premise of the film resonates with the idea of human society as we know it today. A societal construct separates the rich, who like Smaug the dragon have more wealth than they can possibly spend, while the poor literally die because of lack. One character observes that you can spot the poor because they do everything so quickly. The rich can afford to waste time since they have millions of years of time sitting in a vault. Inequality is everywhere in our society, and it is the system that is broken. It is not that someone has more, and someone else having less

48

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

is a bad thing in and of itself, but what the In Time movie highlights is the true cost of inequality. Whereas lack of money can be an inhibitor to releasing the fullness of a person’s potential, in the film, lack of time takes away the person’s opportunity to live a full life. I’m reminded of the commuters traveling on the London underground at rush hour, scurrying along the tunnels like the white rabbit in Alice in Wonderland all with a look of terrified fear that they might not get to their destination on time. You rarely see the upper echelons of society on the tube. Perhaps the truth therefore is that wealth affords them the luxury of not minding wasting the time required to navigate the traffic above ground, or the cost of paying for the congestion charge and parking. Capitalism therefore creates a system where everything contributes to something that leads to an outcome elsewhere. Often people will talk about unintended consequences, but consequences, unintended or intended, are the result of the system in play. Systems theory posits that there is an interdependence and interrelationship between the different parts of society. Choices (inputs) made in one area will be transformed by the system as a whole that effects the outputs. The issue facing our society therefore is that to change requires a systemic (root and branch) change, not simply a few tweaks here and there. Capitalism is pervasive. It is in EVERYTHING. In some ways it IS everything. The way we choose to live our lives is completely dictated by the system in which we operate. Reiter (2016) suggests that capitalism “is more than individuals pursing their own interests . . . what makes capitalism unique is its acquisitive nature.” Consider you own life, how from the moment we wake up, heck even the bed you sleep in, and where you sleep, and where you wake up are dictated by capitalism. Whether you own your own house or rent is completely determined by the market system. The amount you pay for your mortgage or the rent you pay is determined by the markets. Even if you reduce your ownership of things and choose to live a minimalist life with few belongings you will find that the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the way you communicate, even the access you have to read this book are all under the auspices of the capitalist system. Systems theory posits that inputs are taken from the environment and are transformed through structures and practices that create outputs. The



Systems Thinking

49

parts of the system are dependent and are made up of interrelated subsystems, which perform specialized activities. Where you begin to change inequality is difficult because it needs to change in every subsystem, hence why business is so important is because it is a partner in our lives from birth to death and everything in between. It is impossible to step out from underneath the shadow of capitalism, because everything in our lives is controlled or influenced by it in some way and we are “deceived into thinking that the pursuit of material wealth is the key to happiness” (Reiter 2016). Our system of exchange, money, is led by the capitalist system, the feedback and control process of the system being expressed by how much our money is worth in terms of currency exchange, inflation and interest rates, wages and prices. Our system of government is influenced by, and influences it, the feedback and control mechanism being market responses to government policies and voters supporting or opposing the government at the next election. The choices politicians make are determined by our economic system, and their thinking in regard to citizenship rights and responsibilities is influenced by capitalism. Regardless of party, or politics, the influence of the economic system is prevalent. Our society is driven by capitalism. How we choose to work, what work is considered worthwhile, our place in society, our leisure time are all influenced by capitalism. It is not a measure of right or wrong. It just is. How we choose to live, the choices we have in life are determined not by our virtues but by the accident of our birth, the opportunities we are presented with, and how our choices play out. There is a saying that we make our own luck, which to some degree is true; however, the luck available to us is determined by an accident of birth and our position afforded to us by the system. The second saying of course is being born with a silver spoon in your mouth and that is true. Though many rich people will declare they are self-made, they perhaps neglect to mention the advantages in life they have been afforded. If the inputs into career choices are a good education, parental support, and a system which rewards those who have the right connections and access to opportunities by being in the right place at the right time, then the outputs are, by consequence, highly likely to be positive. Of course there is always the exception who will be flung out in order to prove such an assertion wrong, but they are always exceptions and they

50

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

don’t always disprove the rule. Research done by Levine and ­Rubenstein (2013) demonstrated that most entrepreneurs were white, male, and highly educated: “If one does not have money in the form of a family with money, the chances of becoming an entrepreneur drop quite a bit” (Groth 2015). Being able to follow your dreams and risk it all is enabled because basic needs such as food and shelter are met. If you don’t have anything, doing something becomes very hard. Maslow (1943) may be outdated, and his typology over-egged, but he was right to point out that if we don’t have our basic needs met then it is hard to be motivated by anything. The point is that if you are white, male, highly educated, and come from a well-heeled family, it does not make you any more competent or capable than someone from a poor black district, or from a village in Eastern ­Europe. The problem is that inequality leads those in privileged positions to believe that they are better than others, have more potential, and deserve the opportunities than they have because others are undeserving. I can lay that charge at my own door. Here I sit in my conservatory in a three-bed semi-detached house in North Wales, writing this book as a day job. By comparison with my peers I probably have less because of the choices I have made in my life to “be” rather than do the job. I don’t live in a four-bedroomed detached house in a posh part of the UK, for example, and I can’t afford a holiday this year because I didn’t want to work in corporate life. The point is, though, that I can afford to make those choices. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and it afforded me luxuries. I went to Grammar School; I got a good education in an environment where I could study unmolested. I went to University after which I secured a graduate job. I was able to get a mortgage at the age of 24. I am able to make a living as a writer, not just because of hard work, although there has been quite a lot of that involved as well, but because my background has given me access to opportunities that are not afforded. Privilege is part of the system, just as injustice and inequality is. I am no more deserving of a good education as the next person, but I was lucky enough to be in a position where I had the opportunity to receive one. The fact that I had food security and a secure home life meant that I was able to take that opportunity and run with it. There are schools in the UK, in the town where I live, that I would not send my own children to because they are “bad” schools, but I am in a position to make that



Systems Thinking

51

choice for my children. In fact my son’s school, the highest performing school in the district, is marked down by the school’s inspector because it does not have enough children who require free school meals compared to the other schools in the area, and its intake is too middle class. A lot of parents in the area don’t have a choice, and as a result their children go to schools which are a battlefield, where even if they had the potential to get great grades, the kids have to fight through a system where classes are disrupted and resources are lacking. Social advantage isn’t an insult to throw at someone who is privileged to make them feel bad about the opportunities they have had. You are born into the life you are born into. However, recognizing for ourselves that we have a social advantage is a way of checking our attitude toward those that do not. The exhortation often that somehow those people on welfare benefits just need to get on their bike and go to work ignores how perilous life can be. George (2017) states poverty is the hell of which the modern Englishman is afraid. And he is right. Poverty is the openmouthed, relentless hell which yawns beneath civilized society. And it is hell enough. . . . From this hell of poverty, it is but natural that men should make every effort to escape. My ideas about life were certainly changed when my family went through a baptism of fire and we very nearly lost everything during a period of particular financial hardship. Living for an extended period of time in lack certainly wakes you up to what it means to have nothing. When you don’t have the money to pay for food, and the most important decision you have to make is a choice between buying potatoes or toilet roll, needing both, but only having enough for either/or, brings into focus how exhausting being poor is. Time is spent trawling supermarkets in order to get the most bang for your buck, instead of not caring whether you are paying an extra 50p on an item. If some of these white, privileged males were forced to do minimum wage work and attempt to live on the wages of their exploited employees then perhaps CEOs would change their attitude toward the wages of their workers. A few years ago there was a TV program, which took business leaders back to the floor, and

52

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

invariably the senior leaders who went through the experience completely changed business practices, because they were so shocked by what they had seen. It might elicit a different response of reward committees who are arguing about the need to reward executives millions in bonuses for businesses who complain about paying their workers a living wage. The fact that we even call wage levels above the minimum wage the “living” wage is perhaps all you need to know about inequality. Which brings us back to the system and why a change of ideology is so desperately needed. The idea of being driven by Doing Good rather than Profit is not simple because it changes everything. How much you are worth denotes value based on what is good FOR you rather than WHAT you are worth to the bottom line. It is hard to imagine what that would look like or how that would change things because our reality is so far removed from that, but it is one that needs to happen. We cannot carry on, carrying on the way we are. There may be a revolution but what is most likely is a continued decay and then crisis. In some ways populism is the reaction. The reason why the far right rose in Germany in the 1930s is the same reason we are getting a rise in fascism now. People are d ­ isgruntled and see no way out. The current waves of migrating people are providing fodder for the disgruntled to point a finger and say “it’s their fault”—but the blame lies at the feet of the system. Attacking others while maintaining the system doesn’t fix the problem. If anything, it exacerbates it. The every man for himself thinking sharpens the stick with which to do bad.

Win, Lose, or Draw The biggest issue that living in the capitalist system draws is that of the idea of a zero-sum game. That if you or your organization does good, then someone else will do bad and exploit you. Those who have money have the most to lose because if they “give” away their wealth to others then their lifestyle will be depleted. One way of looking at this is to consider the effects of a progressive or regressive tax system. The argument goes that if you tax the rich less then there is a trickle-down effect and those at the bottom will benefit in the long term. There is an argument that taxing rich people less means that tax receipts go up, because they don’t seek out other low tax regimes and seek other ways to keep hold of their money.



Systems Thinking

53

Certainly governments are working at ways of keeping money in country in international and global tax markets, and there is a need to make sure that individuals pay their fair share, but that is the point of Temperatism, it is cultural and social as much as it is economic and political. If the energy is focused on Doing Good, then the motives and actions of individuals and organizations change. Equity doesn’t have to be a win:lose equation. Consider, for example, the effect an extra $5,000 a year has on a family who is struggling to make ends meet versus the same amount on a family who has plenty. If you are a billionaire you could lose $5,000 down the back of the sofa and not notice the difference, but to a family in difficulty that amount of extra money is the difference between having food or not having food, paying the electricity bill or not paying the electricity bill, and sleeping soundly at night in the knowledge that it’s going to be okay versus suffering from insomnia and anxiety because you don’t know what you are going to feed the kids tomorrow. In the West we live in a society where remuneration committees are arguing that CEOs need to paid bonuses of $4.5m in order to “attract talent” in the same companies where individuals on the payroll are having to go to the food bank to feed their families despite working full time because they can’t afford to live on the meager salaries they are paid. A recent report stated that it would take 160 years for the average worker to earn the same as what a CEO earns in 1 year. Just think about that in terms of equality. CEOs don’t work 160 times harder, nor does the work they do contribute 160 times that of their employee. That is plainly absurd. If we follow the argument that a CEO can do more in 1 year than an employee can do in 160 years, then there would be no need to employ employees. CEOs are rarely the reason why the organization is doing well. Their leadership may create an environment that enables employees further down the organization to make a positive contribution, but the value of the work they do is only in how well they are able to align their employees to deliver the organizational objectives. Human resource professionals are wringing their hands at how dire the employee engagement levels are and the economists are scratching their heads at the historically low and reducing levels of productivity in the world. But you only have to look as far as hygiene factors and basic needs to realize that if individuals are worrying how they are going to feed their families tomorrow, then they are not going to be able to contribute on doing their day job.

54

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

Therefore, it doesn’t require you to have genius like Einstein to work out that the reason why workers aren’t productive is because they are not being treated fairly. In the UK the government is making noises about forcing companies to publish ratios between CEO and the average worker, and this is causing all sorts of panic, not because such ratios are worthless or because it will depress the pay of CEOs. The concern is that it will cause internal discord and as a result lead to an increase in the pay for everyone else. Which begs the question as to why that isn’t happening anyway if there is an acknowledgment that transparency and knowledge will result in a requirement to address the problem—because it is a problem. Organizations now have the biggest profits in history at a time when they are paying out the lowest wages in history as a percentage of the economy (Blodget 2012). If organizations invested in employees and their business rather than increasing their profit margins then the economy as a whole would benefit. The corporate world would release more money into society and the economy and that would release more wealth to everyone. It is not a win:lose ratio, it is a straight out win:win. Profit maximization at the expense of people and community is harmful not only to society but to the economic well-being of the world. The systemic response to fairness and equity is stability and well-being across the board.

It’s a Choice It’s the realization that the system drives behaviors that highlights the mindset issues that need to be tackled by Temperatism. Ask anyone about whether someone should be paid a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work and the answer would be of course. Ask anyone who has successfully recovered from a health crisis whether nurses are paid what they are worth and the answer will be not even close. When individuals are lumped together into a pay review which looks at bench marking, the results, however, are different. The “market” dictates, the “shareholders” demand, the result is to get away with paying as little as possible. Profit maximization is dressed up as what the business can afford to pay. When the minimum wage came in, many organizations predicted that the end was nigh, but it wasn’t and the world of business continued on. When new employment laws are introduced businesses invariably bemoan the “cost” to the business. Often



Systems Thinking

55

when it comes to becoming unstuck from the way things are, difficult choices need to be made. This means that many people fall into the trap of believing that they have no choice. Choosing not to change, and not doing anything different, however, is one choice. Doing things differently opens up a world of choices. Choosing to pay people fairly, treat people like human beings, and support good employment practices is a choice. It comes with consequences, but they are not zero sum. At some point there needs to be a realization that “value” isn’t always profit maximization and cost efficiency can only go so far in delivering a healthy, robust, and sustainable business. Therefore, the question is not an either unequal and stay in business or pay more and go bankrupt. The choice is, do we play within the system or break the system? I heard recently that it takes only 10 percent of people doing something different to change a culture. Ten percent of CEOs dynamically choosing to change their pay practices, choosing Doing Good ahead of profits and putting people first.

Breaking the System Choosing to be different will break the system. To begin with, small choices might not make much of an impact. Disruption might occur to your own organization first, before it disrupts the industry and spreads further, but being destructively different does happen. Historically we can look back at the philanthropists, mainly Quakers, who ran things very differently during the Victorian era; Cadbury’s, Port Sunlight, Jacobs, Rowntrees, and Guinness being prime examples of bosses that saw value in treating their employee differently. In an era where workers were ten a penny, and factory workers were little more than slaves to their wealthy owners, these companies went against the grain. In some ways their practices were paternalistic but the underlying premise was to provide workers with good housing, good food, and community—basic goods. The astounding thing is that not only do the places where these companies operated remain known, and are often tourist attractions today, the products of these organizations remain on the shelves of our supermarkets. Perhaps in many ways that is the key lesson in regard to sustainability. Breaking away from the system creates a new system which is outside our

56

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

normal economy and delivers something beyond the boom and bust that organizations are familiar with. It doesn’t take a revolution in the same way as the luddites who broke the looms in rebellion against industrialization, but it does take a new kind of thinking, a systems thinking that goes beyond the transactional basis of work and profit maximization and considers what value can be added by Doing Good and helping individuals maximize their potential. The system that needs to be broken is one of exploitation, of corporate greed, and of inhumane treatment of workers. What needs to replace it is a system which has at its heart equality, equity, and justice for all. It’s not enough to say things are better, when really what we are saying is they are less bad—“hey you are not a slave” is hardly going to perk up someone who is being exploited by their corporate masters. We need to be like William Wilberforce and shut down the system that allows such exploitation to take place. Some of this is us, each as individuals, taking personal responsibility. If we are in a position to be different, then do so. If we are not then we should be active in demanding the system changes. With the 2018 Royal Wedding, much has been made of Meghan Markle writing to a soap manufacturer to demand that they stop having sexist advertising. A 12-year-old girl and a few letters saying “hey, no” and the nationwide advertisement changed. We are much more powerful than a 12-year-old girl, and combined we are a force for good. Social change doesn’t happen because we wish it to be so. System change occurs when the system is challenged, pushed, cajoled, and bent to our will. It is important that we remember we are not powerless slaves of the system, we are masters of it. What system we live under is our collective choice. Note also that there are fewer rich people (the 1 percent) than the people they are exploiting (the 99 percent). The sooner we realize where the real power lies, the quicker change will come.

CHAPTER 5

The Importance of Ethics and Values A people that values its privileges about its principles soon loses both. —Dwight D. Eisenhower

Ethics and values are very often linked to philosophical thinking, and the decisions we make as individuals and as a society as to what we believe constitutes right and wrong and what is good or bad. The philosophical questioning arises because what is good for one person may result in bad consequences for someone else. Ethics and values are indelibly entwined with the idea of morality, or rather whether our behavior is good or bad. Morals regulate the behavior of an individual in a social setting and construct the framework of what behavior is necessary and acceptable in order to provide the opportunity for social harmony. Morals, therefore, provide a code of practice regarding the ethics and values that are important for social cohesion. Ethics and values, whether good or bad, are at the core of human behavior; we all possess instincts regarding morality and are born with a sense of right and wrong judgments regarding our interaction with society as a whole. For example, values regarding fairness are universal and stand apart from notions of culture, religious expression, or politics. Morality and the adjoining ethical and value codes by which we live are therefore essential to the Temperatism ideology. Temperatism is not a religious movement, but it is founded in morality and as a result is built on a foundation that states morality is important in political, social, and

58

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

economic spheres. Our actions within these systems cannot and should not be amoral. Ethics and values are therefore important, not just in the sense of creating signposts regarding what behaviors are acceptable or not acceptable, but to ensure that everything that we do in the pursuit of Doing Good is aligned to an agreed ethical and value-based morality. There has to be a sense of “rightness” to the actions that individuals, organizations, and government do in the pursuit of Doing Good. If mistakes are made and bad things happen in the pursuit of Doing Good, it will be morality and the accompanying ethics and values policies that will provide the map as to whether an organization or individual deserves punishment or support. It is true that very often in the pursuit of Doing Good, bad things do happen. Our action does not always align with the intention with which we set out. “I didn’t mean that to happen” is a common refrain from those dealing with the fallout of a bad policy or business decision, it is not just an excuse, but is a common reaction where action has resulted in something that was not intended. This of course does not excuse recklessness or negligence when evaluating Doing Good. It will be the moral compass that will guide the judgment where things have gone wrong. The key to Temperatism as an ideology is that it is people centered and therefore its core value is that people are valuable and have value beyond something that can be measured purely financially, and second that together humanity has the ability to do great things. Schopenhauer (1841) describes the incentives for humans to act as egoism, compassion, and malice, highlighting that only compassion drives morally good actions. Although I agree that people can act out of malice and egoism depending on the circumstances, I would also maintain that there are very few people who lack compassion. Even the most hard-hearted individual feels the need to act in the face of tragedy. This issue is that we have become indoctrinated that people who are in poverty are without as a fault of their own, draining compassion from the conversation. Watching an episode of Netflix’s Dirty Money regarding Scott Tucker who exploited the poor through his loan company, it was impossible to not feel compassion toward him when talking about the death of his brother, and his loss. Although his greed led to his circumstance, he was still deserving of compassion. Taking a virtue ethics perspective Temperatism suggests



The Importance of Ethics and Values

59

that “man is intrinsically good, or at least is aiming for good” (Vranceanu 2014). This perhaps contrasts with the “dog eat dog” competitive approach to capitalism that embraces ruthless pursuit of profit and individual gain. Vranceanu (2014) refers to the approach of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas in stating that “making profit is good insofar as the person must exercise good judgement to achieve it.” Within this framework is the concept that people somehow deserve or do not deserve positive economic outcomes as a result of their perceived effort or worth. The good judgment to make a profit isn’t the same as doing good, as the litany of hucksters and charlatans throughout history will testify. Instead, Temperatism approaches humanity as having an intrinsic worth as a result of their humanity. The purpose of having Doing Good as the purpose of the economic, social, and political agenda at the center of the ideology is the belief that all humans are of equal value and should be afforded a minimum standard of Basic Goods and provision to enable them to release their potential, develop their ability, and live a life of purpose. Since people are believed to be valuable Temperatism doesn’t claim to have all the answers in regard to solving the problems that humanity faces, but it does claim that together humanity, with all its ingenuity, inventiveness, and talent can together resolve the issues and problems that have plagued our society. The fact that we haven’t done this yet is not because we can’t or that it is impossible, rather it is because we have so far failed to reach our potential and that is in no small part because of our readiness to believe the worst about ourselves.

Philosophical Debates on Ethics and Values Can’t Be Avoided Ethics and values are philosophical and evolutionary in nature, and it is wrong and impossible to try to set in stone what values and ethics individuals must hold and pursue in order to be a Temperatist beyond a core value of what makes Temperatism the ideology it is. Ethical issues will always be an issue for the reason that they throw up what is right and what is wrong, what is moral, and what is immoral. Furthermore, as society develops so too does our understanding of what is ethical and unethical. Before the abolition movement, very few would have considered the morality

60

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

of slavery and yet with 20:20 vision of hindsight the abuses inflicted can be viewed as abhorrent. The truth is that life doesn’t stand still and that definitions of what constitutes Good and Bad don’t stay the same. Even things that we take for granted as being truth can gradually change in a way that at first are not noticeable and then suddenly come to the point where it isn’t necessarily a crisis but things don’t seem to be as clear cut as they used to. In 2018 the Trump administration faced backlash over the “kids in cages” imagery that resulted from a zero tolerance approach to immigration. For some Trump supporters, zero tolerance to immigrants crossing the southern border of the United States was absolutely the right thing to do. However, the unintended consequence of separating young children from their parents wasn’t what was intended by their support of the policy. In the UK, internship has long been established as a method of gaining work experience and yet in the summer of 2012 the morality of businesses recruiting and indeed their methods of recruiting interns has come under the spotlight. Fairness in regard to interns’ work being unpaid or the fact that most internships rely upon a privileged network of who knows whom tied up the question in ethics and values. It is important to note that sometimes people do intend particular consequences, and that some people are truly evil. However, I think it is probably fair to say the majority of people set off with good intentions and as the saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Capitalism didn’t emerge into a society where morals and ethics were ignored, today consumers often make ethical choices and purchasing decision based upon their own moral compass. Kollen (2015) states that “the designation of the principles of, for example, treating every employee equally, would then derive from compassion and from the motivation to act justly.” Ethical standards and moral principles do provide a guide for individual and organizational behavior based upon social norms. However, as Reiter (2016) points out, “it is delusional to think that the laissez faire system would work (i.e., provide social welfare through self-interested behaviour) without some adherence to a moral code.” Doing good actions demonstrate an alignment to an individual expressing emotions, which are positively aligned to their beliefs resulting in moral decision making. American economist Milton Friedman discussed the need for “corporate social responsibility which assumes that profit maximization



The Importance of Ethics and Values

61

take place within a set of meaningful rules and boundaries set by public governance” (Mayer 2007). In 2008, the credit crunch demonstrated that organizations, especially the big financial institutions, have stopped considering their social responsibilities, avoided accountability, and misled the authorities and the public about their dealings. Letting the market decide and a laissez faire approach essentially removed ethics and morality from the center of human enterprise. Financial capitalism has no purpose beyond the creation of wealth for its shareholders and owners. Morality is sidelined, even in regard to the building of the enterprises’ interaction with employees and customers, as the organization pursues the end game of more profit. The transactional nature of capitalism leaves no room for morality regarding whether the trickle-down effect is good or bad, beyond the immediate priority of the profit agenda. The dominance of the financial sector in the last decade has further distanced capitalism from the society in which it operates. Those who produce goods are interwoven with the communities in which their workforce lives and the customers to whom they sell their goods. Financial capitalism has reduced human society to a set of numbers on a spreadsheet, separated from the human factors that go toward the creation of those numbers. Numbers make it harder to maintain a moral code. In war, it is easy to deploy a number of troops on a map or count the collateral damage without counting the true cost of the actions being taken. But every decision has an impact on the well-being of others. It is only when you see the body count that you get a full sense of the inhumanity of a situation. The same is true of financial capitalism. Moving numbers around on a spreadsheet to increase the bottom-line profit removes those involved from the true human and social cost of their actions. Most changes in ethics and values that happen around us we don’t notice and change management is rarely confined to glossy and costly programs and social revolutions but rather on managing a series of little adjustments that occur over a long period of time. Building an ideology that is values driven in regard to the concept of Doing Good means relying on the capacity of people and the wider society to be able to flex and adapt as part of their development if the ideology is to keep up. What is right and proper today won’t be right and proper, with all certainty, in the future. Two hundred years ago, the ideas regarding sanitation and access

62

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

to clean water were not regarded as an absolute necessity because it was only during Victorian times that the impact of waterborne diseases was fully understood and appreciated. Today the lack of sanitation and access to clean water for large parts of the world population is inexcusable and unethical. Some things are more obvious when you have been absent from them for a while. Changes in people, especially children, are more noticeable to people who don’t see them daily, for example. But it is not possible to absent yourself from a system in which you live and work to see what changes, to see whether the ideas and thoughts regarding morality, ethics, and values still stand up to scrutiny. But it is still necessary that Temperatism be not viewed as a static ideology but something that is able to adapt to the changes that occur in society. If, as it is hoped, Temperatism does succeed in improving the wealth and advancement of human society as a whole and there is an increase in the harmony with which we live with nature in regard to developing ways in which to reduce our impact on the environment, then ideas about what constitutes a Basic Good such as Health or Leisure will change dramatically. Today, Basic Good is simply ensuring that we tackle the extremes of poverty and exploitation that should not exist, not only in our own society but also across the world. It is shocking that in 21st-century Britain we have child poverty and families who are going hungry. The need to introduce food distribution schemes in a “wealthy” country such as the UK while at the same time throwing away over 7.2 million tons of mostly edible food and drink worth £12bn is immoral. But setting standards in regard to how much is enough food or drink or attempting to define “too much” becomes fraught with the danger of trying to impose equality in an area which is temporal at best. Standards could be set at a level deemed as not quite enough to encourage people to go out and earn money to buy their own food, or a choice could be made that is just enough to survive on, like the food aid programs. If generosity abounds and people are given more than enough to encourage the pursuit of abundance the flip side is that it could drive immoral behavior among beneficiaries and end civilization, as we know it. As with charitable giving, there is an argument that there is an obligation to provide food that feeds family today; alternatively public funds should pay for the means



The Importance of Ethics and Values

63

with which the family can provide their own food. The overarching problem is, how such a scheme would be financed and whether it is built upon the pretext of a loan scheme or publicly funded from taxation. The issues, of course, with ethics and values are that each individual will have their own opinion as to what is right or wrong. Temperatism doesn’t seek to avoid these questions but instead encourages governments, society, organizations, and individuals to begin asking these questions of themselves and, most importantly, to take steps to find a resolution. In regard to the Basic Good in the area of Health, having food to sustain life, preventing the death of the 25,000 people who die of hunger every day, and avoiding individuals missing meals are arguably essential and a rational conclusion in the context of Doing Good. Achieving the eradication of hunger becomes an outcome that is desirable under Temperatism. However, the way that this goal can be achieved while still balancing the other Basic Goods and in consideration of our stewardship of the planet becomes a consideration for those whose personality and talent leads them to find purpose in its pursuit, as well as working in partnership with those organizations that have the capability and skill to pursue this area of Doing Good. The truth is that there is no one right answer to solving world hunger, but equally the truth is that we cannot morally accept things as they are. Activism and responsibility, rather than acceptance becomes part of the moral code. Arguably Temperatism is a proponent of diversity, especially in regard to gender, disability, and race; certainly in regard to a Doing Good agenda, there is a sense of protectionism and a sense of fairness or equity if not outright equality that underlies the ideology. Take, for example, the situation faced by career women who have reached a stage in their life where they want to have a family. Today, Capitalists argue against extended maternity rights, or indeed paternity rights, because why should organizations be made to pay to keep a woman’s position open and also find a way to cover the work that the women is unable to do while on maternity leave. In a society where the profit agenda rules, there is no argument other than that of equality and fairness, which we have already discovered isn’t a priority for capitalism. Under Temperatism the question of why should the organization pay changes direction to be one of why wouldn’t the organization support an employee’s choice in regard to

64

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

family life? Research has shown that employees expect to be able to live their own values within the work environment and that they need to feel an alignment between organizational and personal identity if they are to remain engaged and productive. Where the profit motive is replaced with a Doing Good motive then creating an environment where an individual’s Basic Good of Personality shapes their choices regarding their family life and the health and well-being of their family moves up the agenda and priorities of both the individual and the organization. Of course for smaller businesses, supporting female employees in pursuing a right to family life may be more than their cash flow in an organization allows and therefore partnership with the government in supporting such an agenda would need to be considered. The weak business arguments that the “Diversity” agenda currently offers would with Temperatism be replaced with a moral argument of Doing Good. For example, the closure of Remploy factories in 2013 occurred with a capitalist attitude regarding cost, rather than a consideration of the wider implications of the Basic Good that the factories were delivering in regard to providing work for disabled workers with complex care needs. For minorities who face discrimination, their right to Basic Good changes the agenda from that of prevention of discrimination that stops them from achieving their potential to a positive agenda focusing on releasing their potential. This may seem like a small difference, or semantics, but the subtlety of the change must not be underestimated in regard to the impact of appreciative qualities in human interaction versus preventive actions. When the agenda changes to Doing Good, there is a shift in the method by which judgment and decision is made. Pursuing a course of appreciative inquiry in decision making changes the atmosphere from one that is discriminatory and negative to one that focuses on what is good as well as Doing Good. To put this in context consider the field of personal development. In modern organizations, individuals are often asked to fill in personal development plans. When reviewing our skills, knowledge, and behavioral development needs, all too often the focus is on what we are not good at, our areas of weakness. Discrimination and racism work in the same way. We view people based on what they are not,



The Importance of Ethics and Values

65

they are not white, they are not able bodied, and they are not the same as us. Therefore, how we view that person is diminished, less than, not as good as, and we create an environment where discrimination and persecution thrive. An appreciative approach focuses on our strengths, what we are and what we can be. It examines us in all our glory, not to build us into egotistical maniacs but to focus us on what we are really good at, what value we can add, and what makes us who we are. Temperatism, in driving a Doing Good agenda, changes the focus from what is not to what can be and that change can only contribute to positive reinforcement of the diversity agenda. Of course a challenge to the idea of Doing Good comes in the form of moral dilemmas. How can Temperatism and the idea of Basic Good operate when entering into the area of morality that can be argued to be both Good and Bad? Take, for example, abortion. If, as a core value, Temperatism states people are valuable and have value prochoice cannot logically fall under the Doing Good paradigm and access to abortion should be denied. Every individual will have their own ideas about abortion and it boils down to the same ethical arguments that already exist in regard to when does a fetus become a person. However, the most important part of the argument boils down to whether the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother. Certainly in cases where continuing with the pregnancy could endanger the mother’s life, the dilemma is more stark, and the case of Savita Halappanavar, who died of blood poisoning after the hospital failed to offer a termination and early signs of an infection being missed, led to a Yes vote in the 2018 Irish referendum to allow abortion. Freedom of speech and discrimination faces the same whose rights subsides in regard to one person having the right to say what they like, versus the right of someone not to be discriminated against. There is no universal truth, though each of us will argue that our truth is right. But in reality it is only opinion and societal norms that accompany the answers to this dilemma and others like it. Complexities arise when there is no right answer to which good is most beneficial to society, but a decision needs to be made and action needs to be taken. Historically, there are many examples of actions taken because one side, or rather the side that held power at the time, believed that their Good was “right” and the result was suffering and hurt for those who were “wrong.”

66

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

Consider, for example, reformation in the UK. Protestants may have seen the actions taken during this period as beneficial in regard to freeing the UK from the dominion of the Catholic Church. But the act of following Protestantism had oppression at its foundation. Catholics were persecuted not just in the immediate period of reformation but on an ongoing basis, especially in Ireland, where Catholics were prevented from owning land and holding public office. It is still the case that the UK Monarch cannot be Catholic or marry a Catholic. Another example is in regard to the case of establishing Israel in the aftermath of the Second World War. After the persecution of the Jewish people by Hitler in Europe, the establishment of the Israeli state in its historic homeland was intended to provide security for the displaced Jewish race. But the process of doing so meant forceful removal of the existing population from their land and their homes, the result of which is the continuing violence in the Middle East and the human rights abuses concerning the Palestinian people who have lost their land and homes on the West Bank, and the restrictions on work and travel they face as a result of Israeli security concerns. Society, organizations, government, and individuals will always be faced with competing claims for which opinion, idea, or decision is most likely to achieve the goal of Doing Good. In the examples given of the reformation and Israel, it is obvious with the luxury of hindsight to say that these actions were oppressive, but at the time the intention was one section of society intent on Doing Good based on what they thought was right. The object of Temperatism as a people-centered ideology is not to determine absolutes in regard to what Good looks like, but create an environment where the pursuit of Doing Good is the only agenda. Oppression cannot and can never be part of Doing Good. If there are competing claims on what Good is then dialogue and compromise must be sought. In 2018 there were conflicting claims in Australia in regard to giving same-sex couples the right to marry. Those who are Christians believe that their right to religious freedom is being overridden since the Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples argue that they should have a right to marry. Each side can produce coherent arguments for and against their position, but the dispute becomes complicated by politics, ideology, tradition, societal norms, emotion, and the pursuit of rights. To find resolution to such arguments without one side



The Importance of Ethics and Values

67

feeling their rights have been trampled over requires compromise on both sides. For those against the redefinition of marriage the argument is less about whether marriage should be kept as a holy union between a man and a woman, but rather that the right to marriage might be used as a stick with which to pursue an anti-Christian agenda. The divide is based on a fear that individuals and institutions that have a traditional belief in what constitutes marriage will find themselves on the wrong side of equality law. Those who believe in a more universal interpretation of marriage fear discrimination and want their rights protected and that being prevented from having the right to marry particular individuals or having their marriage service conducted by a particular institution continues the discrimination that they already experience. Again the complexities can overshadow the simplicity of the solution, and power agendas can move the argument from Doing Good to which side is more right than the other. Neither side has a right to oppress the other, but respect for each other’s beliefs and needs can and should be the foundation for a compromise where everyone can live with the outcome, even if they are not pleased with it. Capitalism has taught us that in order to win someone must lose. Temperatism teaches us that Doing Good allows everyone to win. They might not win big, but since we are innovative, inventive, and creative, people will find a novel solution that means all sides can find agreement if they are focused on Doing Good. It could be argued, as proponents of capitalists do, that the pursuit of profit and shareholder return is Doing Good. Vranceanu (2014) argues “that the goal of increasing economic profit is fully consistent with the corporation doing good for society.” The issue that profit for profits sake raises, of course is profit for what purpose? Profit is not a bad thing in moderation but it should only ever be pursued in the context of what profit will be used for, not as an end in itself, as is the case in current society. Temperatism isn’t seeking to oppress organizations or the market, but to find a solution that means that the pursuit of profit and profit itself is used for the purpose of Doing Good. It is also worth noting that Vranceanu (2014) goes on to say “there is little justification for corporations to transfer the whole economic profit to shareholders. Economic agents entitled to receive the economic profit are precisely those who create this profit.”

68

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

Setting absolutes around morality within Temperatism, such as the value placed upon the life of each individual, is different from universalism, which assumes that each circumstance and situation demands the same understanding of right and wrong. For an employee working in an organization in the Western world, the idea of Basic Good will differ from what Basic Good means to someone in a third world country. This doesn’t diminish the value of moral decision making in Temperatism or remove the goal of reducing the gap between the rich and the poor, but instead allows Doing Good and Basic Goods to be situational and delivered within the context within which decisions are made. Moral absolutes with Temperatism are to do with core values, such as the removal of a profit first agenda, the need to pursue an agenda of Doing Good, and proportionality in regard to wealth redistribution. Debate about what Doing Good is becomes not Doing Good if it descends into conflict, politicking, and immobilization. Discussion is encouraged and needed if we are to encourage creativity in solving problems, but “Doing” is a verb and therefore requires action to be taken. Not “Doing” is as bad as not Doing Good. What can be determined in such a situation is that mistakes will be made and on occasion, bad will be done in the pursuit of Doing Good. It would be impossibly naïve to think that it wouldn’t happen. Temperatism isn’t about perfection, but it is about humanity trying to be the best that we can be. Failure will be part of the process, things will go wrong, and on some occasions more harm than good will be achieved. However, hope remains because Temperatism is a people-centered ideology; therefore, Doing Good means that we don’t simply blame or castigate attempts to get it right, instead we acknowledge our failures, take responsibility for our part, learn from our mistakes, and, in the pursuit of Doing Good, seek to put things right.

Equality Equality in regard to democratic liberal traditions is important in an ideology that is people centered. It is not enough for politicians to say they serve the people if their actions service only a small elite or self-interest and it is not acceptable for those with power to impose and coerce those who lack power to obey a course of action that only benefits those who



The Importance of Ethics and Values

69

are in power at the expense of Basic Good for others. In society none of us are truly equal. Our lives are a product of where we are born, our parents, educations and opportunities available to us. We cannot, as socialism attempted, try to hold ownership of property and decision making as a common collective; Temperatism isn’t attempting to make everyone the same, instead it rejoices in the diversity of humanity and promotes the market insofar as it is a mechanism and system which can be constructed to pursue the very best of what humanity can achieve and a means by which wealth can be created for the purpose of Doing Good. But Temperatism does infer responsibility on those who are born into positions of privilege or wealth to take a greater share of responsibility of Doing Good in regard to wealth redistribution. Those who have more must therefore do more Doing Good. The possession of more not only transcends purely material resources and wealth, but also applies to areas such as knowledge, creativity, and talent. Intellectual property rights are a case in point. The current system quite rightly protects individuals that have invested time and resource on research and the development of ideas that competitors could exploit for commercial gain without the risk. But the profit motive has distorted the protection of ideas beyond what is reasonable. The current legal battle between smartphone and tablet manufacturers demonstrates most clearly how knowledge, creativity, and talent resources can be prevented from Doing Good. The financial resource that is being spent by the manufacturers, worldwide, on the dispute to protect intellectual property is not about protecting ideas but about preventing competition and maintaining dominance over “market share.” The dispute has descended into a fight that is at the expense of investing in more research and development. This stagnates creativity and robs the world of potential that could be achieved. Again Temperatism challenges the pursuit of protectionism over intellectual property to what purpose? If it is to ensure that a return on investment can be made so that further research and development can be conducted then it could be argued that protecting the property rights of an organization or an individual is Doing Good in regard to promoting the development of ideas, but if it is because of how much profit can be made from an idea and preventing other organizations from competing then again the question for what purpose needs to be explored.

70

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

In areas such as medical research there is a great deal to be said for Doing Good by providing government and philanthropic sponsorship for research into drugs and medicines that can immediately reduce the suffering or increase health in regard to diseases that are preventable. The work of the World Health Organization on disease control for smallpox and polio demonstrates the possibilities of a worldwide effort to eradicate preventable diseases that cause suffering to millions. Advances have been made in securing support from pharmaceutical companies to provide medicines cheaply but organizations that have intellectual rights on particular medical cures can prevent that knowledge from being made accessible if it doesn’t meet their profit margin criteria. In addition, research into possible medical advances is abandoned if the areas of research aren’t considered to offer a significantly large enough profit margin for investors. However, with a Temperatist agenda, Doing Good in regard to research and knowledge will remove pure profit constraints to ensure that a wider social context becomes the purpose behind intellectual pursuit. Which brings the narrative onto the subject of military and warfare. War in any culture is not “Good,” killing other people is not to be promoted as a Temperatist ideal, but like all moral and ethical debates there are times when war is either necessary or can be justified, not in the sense of politicians producing dodgy dossiers but in regard to Doing Good. One of the Basic Goods is, after all, that of security and sometimes military action is necessary to protect security. It is hard to decipher how wars that have been fought over the last one hundred years can be justified as Doing Good or, rather a moral war. The World Wars, against Germany, were in balance justified and certainly were important in regard to protecting the Basic Good of Security. However, the means by which it was fought make the pursuit of Doing Good messy. In many ways the ideology of Temperatist considers people from a virtue ethics perspective, that man is intrinsically good, and for the most part people aim to do good things. The picture of business as a ruthless juggernaut run by brutes is, for the majority of businesspeople, unfair. Even the abuse of bankers, estate agents, and lawyers is unfair in the context of meeting one, who like all of us is just trying to make a living. In reality the competing ideologies



The Importance of Ethics and Values

71

all seek the same thing, to make the condition of human kind better. The disagreement is on what “better” looks like and how we get there. In more recent times the “coalitions’” involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria presents a moral dilemma that would take more than this book to examine, as there are many arguments for and against these conflicts (or invasions?) in regard to Doing Good. What Temperatism does offer in regard to the ethics of war is that of the removal of the acquisitiveness of capitalism that justifies aggression in the pursuit of profitable “plunder.” Modern warfare has changed considerably and “collateral damage” is no longer as acceptable as it was during the World Wars in the last century, but the truth is, it is still the vulnerable that suffer when war occurs. As a people-centered ideology Temperatism must in essence be an antiwar ideology, but Temperatism is also pragmatic and flexible in recognizing that it is always possible that there will be circumstances where war is justifiable in the pursuit of Doing Good.

Humanizing Business Temperatism as an ideology and a movement of course faces a huge challenge to convert the social, economic, and political ideas and idealism into reality. Changing a social, economic, and political structure is not the same as changing the mind of an individual through argument and prose. In exploring the question of the morality of war, there is the challenge as to whether Temperatism is an ideology worth fighting for. Moral consensus is required if social change based on ethics and values is to be created. Underpinning ideas about what is an acceptable level of equality is based on the understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Also moral thinking enables us to identify cause and effect of our actions beyond simple systems and processes toward an understanding of our behavior and actions and the social consequences of these. Can dominant power players, such as those who dominate the capitalist neoliberal power structures today, really be persuaded to the ethical and moral positioning and arguments for Doing Good pursued by the Temperatist agenda? How business is conducted is a center piece of Doing Good, it is reshaping the expectation that financial gains trump social performance,

72

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

and the degradation of virtuosity in order to promote a sole focus on shareholder performance that is creating the issues we see in society today. Wang et al. (2016) state that A moralized, virtuous corporation . . . is one that “understands” that the pursuit of excellence is ultimately a moral pursuit and hence seeks to encourage it . . . humanizing business is an approach of understanding business and business ethics by focusing on the individuals in business their moral capacity as well as constraint. Conducting business ethically and morally therefore is a process that is aided by the morals of the people in the business, which speaks to the need for change to happen socially as well as organizationally. Promoting the idea that we are better than “this” isn’t a new paradigm in society but one we should demand of ourselves as we pursue economic activities, personally and collectively. We can’t change the world immediately, but we can change ourselves, through self-regulation and a decision to do good for ourselves. I believe that, like most social, political, and economic change, only time will tell whether Temperatism is possible. Thatcherism and Reaganomics were responsible for the birthing of the Fast Capitalism that the Western world is being subjected to today. It did not happen outside the context of the time and place in which they occurred. The 1970s were a difficult time socially, economically, and politically. In the UK, the 1970s was a time of weak and ineffective government and the unions had gone from being a force of good to a parody of left wing militancy that alienated the wider population through general strikes that were interrupting the lives of and harming the common man. As well as domestic trouble, the oil crisis threatened modern living standards and developed a fear driven from lack of control over our own destiny. The emergence of a different way of doing things was inevitable. This book is not the first book written in recent times in regard to the need to do things differently and the importance of questioning and challenging the dominance of capitalism. Morality and inequality are being debated and discussed not only in the coffee houses of academic institutes, but over the dinner tables of the middle classes and on the TV sofas of popular news and political



The Importance of Ethics and Values

73

programs. The success or failure of Temperatism lies in whether its belief that people are valuable and have value and that Doing Good is an agenda worth following is something that calls to our inner self as well as our rational thought. There are plenty of organizations in the world today that are changing the way that they do business, who are already pursuing a purpose of Doing Good, not just in regard to delivering sustainable business and green agendas but in regard to understanding that People really do matter and that it is the creativity and inventiveness of the People in the organization that can contribute most to sustainable performance. Many organizations already invest profit for purpose locally, nationally, and internationally and many have principles that are based on equality in regard to wealth distribution. Politically and socially morality, ethics, and values are back on the agenda, but at the moment the journey toward change is being hijacked by popularist demands to damn the elite and civil protest. If rational thinking survives and truth prevails, there is hope that the output of the disruption being experienced at the time of writing will lead to the demand for the social shift needed. If “the People” decide, on balance, that the arguments and debate offered in this book make Temperatism an attractive alternative to the current capitalist system then they will provide the moral and ethical energy to demand a new social construction of market, government, and society. But as with all change, the biggest change begins with the individual. If each individual chooses that Doing Good should be their top priority and pursue that priority with everything they have to offer in regard to their talent, skills, and knowledge then change is possible. Empires rise and fall and even those we think are going to last forever will eventually fade, whether this book will be the catalyst for the fall of the Empire of capitalism we will only know with the benefit of hindsight.

CHAPTER 6

Social Conscience Begins with Your Employees Businesses can engage themselves in philanthropic causes and stewardship principles to unleash shared value for business and toward society. —Mark Anthony Camilleri (2016)

As an OD practitioner, I work in a number of different sized businesses, across a plethora of different industries, and in each organization I hear the same refrain “People are our most important asset.” As an OD practitioner, I am only ever invited into a business as a last resort. When all else has failed and someone has had the foresight (or hindsight) to consider that maybe the answer lies in “fixing the people problem.” The issue of course is that people are only a problem if the organization fails to act in a way that nurtures them or creates a hostile environment. Change managers very often talk about the need to capture the hearts and minds of the people, as if a fancy bit of marketing is enough to get people behaving the way leaders want them to behave. OD is slightly different to traditional change management because it is about harnessing the people, making them be the driver of change the organization is looking for. It is often difficult for managers to understand that it is the organization’s systematic treatment of employees that has created the dysfunction. Although it is true some individuals are dysfunctional and can be disruptive, an individual cannot infect an entire organization unless the whole is already in trouble, in much the same way that the straw breaks the camel’s back. What is also true is that what is

76

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

happening in the organization also happens with its impact on the wider environment. The internal organization is reflected in the external actions. At the end of the last millennium, there was an intense interest in how looking after your employees improved customer service. Perhaps some of the advice dispensed then, the proposition to focus on employees at the expense of customers, was taking the idea too far, but the foundational idea is important to Temperatism. How an organization treats its people is reflective of its social conscience. If an organization cares about society, its employees are part of that. Treating people badly while professing to care about society is a misnomer. The organization and its employees should have shared interest, but how often do employees feel separate from the organizational community, invisible and mistreated? Often enough for robust processes to exist and laws to be passed to protect employment rights. Employment law is stronger in Europe than in the United States, but the principles exist and the introduction of social sharing of employment experiences on platforms such as Glassdoor is a salutary reminder that people share bad experiences and wish to tell their stories. In the human resource (HR) profession, there has been, for some time, a move from Personnel, which is deemed to be the tea and tissues profession to HR Management, or more specifically Strategic HR Management. With the shift toward managerialism, there has been a shift in attitude toward people. The HR profession has moved from being the bridge between managers and employees, being the voice of conscience, to pursuing the seat at the board table and directing itself to a managerialist mindset. This is important to remember, to explain some of the shifts that have taken place in regard to how people are seen within the organizational setting. The focus on human capital, that is, people as a capital resource for the organization to exploit, is an indication of how commoditized the human condition has become in the organizational setting and the loss of social connection or conscience in the organization setting. This isn’t simply alarmist statements from a bleeding hearted HR professional, this is an observation of the dehumanizing effect of managing people in the same way that an organization managers capital resources such as equipment, machinery, and business. People are not a resource in the same way as a machine. They are so much more, and capable of being more than simply a butt on a seat in the office or hands to operate



Social Conscience Begins with Your Employees

77

equipment in production. Humans are the essence of being, and instead of following the trend toward the disposability of human life, which is present in many organizations, however much we like to shut our eyes to it, organizations and HR professionals should be standing up to defend human beings as individuals and promote a human society that focuses on enlightenment and enhancement. Degradation and destruction prevails, and it’s time to revisit how employees are treated to get the best from people, not because the law says, but because we should be humane in the way we treat other people. Organizations can and should have a sense of responsibility toward their employees, there should be a concern for their welfare, and a decision to fight injustice and help solve problems that the employee is facing. If we can’t care for our employees, then we can’t care for the wider society and the agenda remains the same, leading nowhere fast. Bammens (2016) describes the intention of an organization to “protect and improve its employees’ satisfaction and well-being” as organizational care. Osterman (2018) introduces the concept of the high road model, which seeks to deliver high-performance working and job quality focused on employment practices in the organization. Just as there is an expectation that employees will choose to go the extra mile for their organization, the concept of organization care suggests that the organization will in turn go the extra mile for their employees. It seems absurd that this expectation is somehow radical or considered socialist. Is it not simply a quid pro quo? Positive actions that demonstrate high levels of appreciation of employees, through generous compensation levels and supportive services such as child care, should be the exception rather than the rule . . . shouldn’t they? The skepticism with which employees receive organizational care is epitomized by instances such as the “backdated” pay rise of NHS nurses in 2018, which delivered pennies of extra pay on nurses’ monthly salary pay. Organizations generally don’t care, or if they profess to, then their actions rarely bare out that proclamation in reality.

People Matter There are few individuals, when asked whether people matter who would express that they do not. However, their attitudes and actions in the workplace contradict the sentiment. As business pressures grow, and the

78

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

workplace changes, it seems there is little room for humanity and putting people first. According to the UK Government’s Thriving at work report, 300,000 workers lose their jobs each year due to mental health issues and lost productivity and performance costs £42bn a year for UK employers. With facts and figures such as these, it is difficult to contemplate how people thrive at work. Although there are other factors that lead to mental health issues aside from the workplace, it is clear that the amount of time that is spent in the workplace and the importance of work to self-identity, personal financial security, and even social networks to the individuals make organizations a central pillar in the well-being of individuals in society. It is not enough for organizations to simply provide work and assume that it should be enough, it is the realization that Doing Good begins with employees who rely on the organization as a central feature in their life. People should matter to organizations, not just from a moral and ethical perspective, but because it is people that provide organizations with the competitive advantage; they need to be successful in the marketplace and achieve organizational objectives. Reiter (2016) quoting Freeman (2002) says that “we must reconceptualise the firm around the following questions: For whose benefit and at whose expense should the firm be managed.” If the answer to that question isn’t people, if people don’t matter, why are we here? I know this seems such a pedantic question, possibly a little too philosophical; however, the why question is important. If our reasons for being, our purpose is not to contribute positively to the world, then I would argue that we have lost our way. The progress made over centuries of human development, despite the missteps and mistakes, can’t possibly have been without purpose. The good and the great, the scoundrels and those deemed evil have all acted with an intention to make things better, even if it was for a subsection of humanity, or those that they thought were deserving, at the expense of others. The flaw of course is very often the improvement it is for “us” regardless of the consequences on “them.” From this perspective, not matter how heinous, it could be argued that slavery was progressive, as was the holocaust. Which, of course, is not what I am advocating. Therefore, the premise that people should matter needs the qualifier that ALL people matter, even those we disagree with. Progress should be aimed at progress for everyone, not just



Social Conscience Begins with Your Employees

79

the few. In 2018, there is a rising level of “us” and “them” across the world, words are used to denote that someone does not belong, and some of that language is beginning to become worrying with terms such as “infestation” and “invasion” being used, especially in regard to asylum seekers and immigrants. Rosling et al. (2018) point out that there is a mistaken perception that the world is divided into two, either as “them and us” or “the developing world and the developed world” labels that are used continually but are more akin to the way the world was in 1965. The world has completely changed, for almost every aspect of human lives, including education, health care, and technological advancement. Rosling et al. (2018) summarized this by stating that, “low-income countries are much more developed than most people think. And vastly fewer people live in them.” The world is a better place than our cognitive categorization allows, as most of the world is more like “us” and we are closer to “them.” The world is not divided into two, and therefore there is not a gap between the deserving and the not deserving, other than that in our head. The same is true in organizational life. There is a perception that title and bestowed hierarchical power make someone more deserving of receiving better perks, pay which exceeds proportionality and respect purely because of their position. More disturbingly, there is a perception that the way someone is treated as a person differs according to their position. The “them and us” divides the workplace into two distinct camps. From an employee’s perspective “them” is usually directed at the decision makers, the management team and the senior leaders within the organization, and “us” is everyone else who has to follow their foolhardy strategy. Employees get lumped together by the management teams as those who don’t follow orders, disrupt things, or cause people problems. Sometimes the divide is physical in regard to managers having offices and everyone else working in an open-plan office; the geographic location of the building; head office versus regional offices; or even floors in a particular building with the management offices often occupying a floor in a multifloored building. In an attempt to reduce the divide many managers will adopt an open-door policy, which is fine as long as the door is really open more than it is closed, and if the open door applies to everyone and not just the select few. National culture plays a big role in terms of the hierarchical divide,

80

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

with some nations, such as those in Northern Europe, having more open cultures to those in, say, Asia, which are more rigid in their hierarchy. However, it is the leaders of the organization who determine the choice of how people are treated in the organization and by the organization. In multinational companies very often the home country culture will pervade, and therefore though there may be cultural shades the driving philosophy should be that people matter.

The Changing Workplace There is part of me that is slightly bemused that I have to write a chapter on businesses acting with a social conscience toward their employees. Surely, my inner voice says, that goes without saying. But, business is changing, has changed and not for the better. The exploitation of workers isn’t new, in fact exploitation full stop isn’t new. Slavery is as much a part of the modern economy as it is a historical artifact. Human trafficking, often placed in the category of criminal activity such as prostitution, is not something that you would normally associate with modern business. However, whether working in agricultural jobs, sweatshops, construction, or mine there are estimated to be around 40.3 million people in modern slavery, the biggest proportion of whom, 24.9 m, are in some form of forced or bonded labor. The UK government estimates that tens of thousands of people in the UK are subject to modern slavery and it is thought around 1.5 million victims are exploited in developed economies. If we ponder this number for a minute, consider that Canada has a population of 36.9 m people. If people in modern slavery were a country it would be the 34th most populous country in the world and those in forced labor is the same-sized population as the 53rd most populous country in the world, more than the Netherlands, Sweden, or Portugal. Imagine the whole entire population of Argentina (population 44 m) in slavery, that’s the extent of exploitation taking place across the world. You may be thinking, well, no organization I have ever worked for is as bad as that. Which is true, until you start considering the 100,000 increase in Zero Hours contracts in 2017, taking the number of employment contracts without guaranteed hours to 1.8 m in UK (Partington 2018). Also, 350 employers were named and shamed by the UK



Social Conscience Begins with Your Employees

81

government in 2017 for underpaying the workers the national minimum wage, affecting nearly 16,000 of the UK’s lowest paid and most vulnerable workers. Crossing sectors across the economy organizations docked employee wages to pay for Christmas parties and uniforms or used tips from customers to top up employee pay. The biggest offender is a well-known retailer on the high street of nearly every big city in the UK, Debenhams Retail plc, which failed to pay £134,894 to 11,858 workers (James 2017). Consider also the defence of large pay settlements and bonuses for CEOs: the chair of industrial strategy committee into fair pay, Rachel Reeves, in speaking to the chair of the house builder Persimmon homes, “you would have thought that an organisation that can pay £45m to its CEO might be able to afford to pay the living wage to everybody in the organisation” (Jeffery 2018). Despite there being strong employment laws in the UK and Europe, exploitation of employees has increased, as focus on short-term delivery of profits and shareholder value has increased. A tighter labor market helps, but the recession that followed the 2008 credit crunch contributed to a lowering of standards in regard to pursuing a socially conscious employment relationship with employees. On the one hand, the rhetoric from HR and management has been about the importance of employee contribution to the bottom line, on the other hand there has be a plethora of forces that has been pushing the dial in the other direction. Whether it is the need to have a fluid workforce to cope with variations in business demand, the loss of the job for life model, shorter employee tenures, and the proliferation of technology, business are facing unprecedented pressures to ignore the well-being of their people. But just like continually cutting costs is not sustainable in the long term, neither is treating people badly. Productivity may improve in the short terms but if you cut the heart and soul out of an organization, it will have a negative impact in the long term. Motivation and engagement will be lost, and it is easier to destroy employee commitment than build it back again, because trust has to be rebuilt. These issues are not limited to the organization which has treated people poorly, these issues reverberate across the economy with the World Health Organization reports that work-related health problems cost equivalent of 4 to 6 percent of GDP in most countries. With high

82

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

levels of sovereign debt, the cost of poor management to a nation’s health should perhaps fall on organizations. In the United States, this is the case, but many workers are not covered by health insurance. In the European Union, many governments subsidize health care, and perhaps a case for making employers responsible for the health of their people has a certain logic. Work can contribute to positive health outcomes, but it can also make employees ill; therefore, attempts to get organizations to pay for employees who have work-related health issues may rebound if organizations discriminate against people who have had previous health issues. Such a reaction would be typical in the current paradigm, but in adopting a Doing Good agenda, it should be obsolete.

Investing in Employee Skills Many organizations will laud their contribution to employee learning and development, and yet the first budget to be cut in a cost-effectiveness exercise is that of the training department. The level of investment in staff development is extremely low, if not laughably scant, especially for the general employee population who are not in the high-potential talent management programs targeting the top 10 percent. Garcia and Kliener (2016) suggest that “the traditional view is that maximizing a business’ return on investment requires minimizing costs, especially labor costs. Investing in employees thus tends to be an area that most businesses do not explore.” Considering management is supposed to be making the best decisions for the organization, it is bemusing that they would consistently reject what is clearly a win–win opportunity for business, policy makers, and society if they were to invest in nurturing human capital and ensuring that the business has an available flow of employees with the right knowledge, skills, and capabilities that the organization requires in order to achieve its strategic goals. The fact that organizations balk at the costs of engaging in education programs and continuing professional development of their workers is hardly surprising since “human capital” is uniquely positioned as a cost rather than an input, which when transformed has the ability to add significant value to the organization’s bottom line. This same hesitation to invest millions in other forms of capital in the organization, such



Social Conscience Begins with Your Employees

83

as plant and machinery, land and buildings, is perhaps attributable to a mistaken belief that these are more certain investments. This argument, of course, is based on the fact that production output is easy to measure, whereas human capability improvement is difficult to place a financial metric against. However, given that one of the main issues holding back organizations from achieving their objectives is skill gaps, mismatched availability of the right type of talent in the labor market, staff turnover, and stagnant productivity rates, it makes no sense that corporations rely on minimal corporate training to bridge the gap in employee knowledge and skills. As Garcia and Kliener (2016) point out “A happy and e­ ngaged employee can yield high sales and reduce other operational costs .  .  . an effective well-being program means healthier and more productive ­employees.” Investment in people, whether remuneration, training and development or a great work environment, delivers a return on investment, or as Garcia and Kliener (2016) point out, “no other investment strategy provides as many positive outcomes as investing in employees and corporate social responsibility.” Most governments are struggling to match the capability needs of business through education, primarily because education is designed for yesterday’s and today’s skills and knowledge and is not future proof. In a fast-moving global economy, where technology and industry disruption is now the norm rather than a once in a lifetime occurrence, the political cycle and agenda is not fit for purpose when it comes to designing a suitable education agenda. Even if there is the political will to tamper with the notoriously entrenched education environment, it takes years for policies to make the statute books and longer still for the education system to implement the changes, by which time the “fit for purpose” syllabus and models of learning are behind what is happening in the business world. The children learning this already outdated content are in a system that takes at least 11 years to get the educated human being released in the job market, assuming that the individual has actually engaged in learning at all. As a model it is little wonder that our education system isn’t meeting the needs of business and there are problems with the new entrants into the job market. Add onto this the fact that the skills that employees have, who are already in the labor market, quickly become outdated; it becomes a no brainier that business should be part of the system of education and development.

84

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

Organizations  are at the coal face, they know what capability they need their employees to have, and they can make sure employees are equipped in a just in time cycle of education, learning and development, in the same way that production processes have been developed to ensure products and services change in line with the changing demands of the market. Aligning organizational skills requirements with education and learning and development provision requires collaboration between education and business and industry. Attempts at such an alliance are already in existence in the world economy to greater and lesser degrees of success, with many organizations pursuing relationships with educators to fulfill their self-interested needs of alignment between the labor market and their workforce needs. The evidence demonstrates that the level of commitment of the organization to show leadership in the stewardship of their employees’ capability development impacts how much shared value is created and the level of return on investment enjoyed by both business and society. Sustainable businesses that take responsibility for training their staff as part of their employee value proposition do so knowing that their focus on employee development enhances employee well-being and contributes positively to the surrounding community. This position provides a new conception that organizations are in fact key players in addressing education and training needs in the economy, providing opportunities for both national government and organizations to improve skill levels and in turn use resource and political influence to cultivate local talent. There is a shared benefit, governments ensure that the education system is delivering individuals that will become contributing members of society, and organizations get the skills and knowledge that they need to run the business successfully. The really stupid part of this proposal is that it is a return to old thinking, where organizations would engage apprenticeships to come into the organization and learn a trade. The difference is that in the case of a Doing Good agenda, this would be the case for all organizations and it would be lifelong learning not just for young people starting their first job. Studies show that investment in ­employee learning and development has wider benefits than simply delivering the skills needs of the organization. Improved employee engagement, increased motivation, higher morale and job satisfaction, lower turnover, and enhanced productivity are all outputs of such investment.



Social Conscience Begins with Your Employees

85

It is more than simply having the right skills in place when they need them. Organizational contribution to education does something greater than simply meeting private sector needs for particular skill sets. By a­ ctively participating in ensuring education maintains societal well-being, they cultivate human capital beyond a resource paradigm and enter the realm of truly ­releasing human potential. Having concern from a society is more than e­ njoying the business benefits and opportunities, which arise from cross-­sector collaboration and operational efficiencies. It is concerned with nurturing employees, enhancing an individual’s ability to be more, and boosting the well-being of their staff beyond being “not stressed.” Posturing behavior will need to be challenged, since merely making the right noises regarding having the right talent in the organization misses the point. Instead being genuinely interested in helping people be the best that they can be, and being concerned for how the organization can contribute to that, makes the organization an active participant in individual purposeful endeavor. In this way organizations bring not only economic value but social value too, encouraging innovation, creativity, continuous personal and professional development, and sustainable and responsible talent management practices. Socially responsible investment in education and employee development will lead to greater dialogue, awareness, and constructive communication among all stakeholders.

Outcomes of Doing Good Meyer (2015) states that “companies which create a beneficial situation for their employees, offering them the possibility to thrive, later reap the fruits of an enchanted economic functioning of their enterprise.” In Chapter 2 we ­explored how Doing Good led to better profits, but the output of Doing Good is greater than simply a bigger figure on the bottom line. Pinker (2018) says, It is individuals, not groups, who are sentient—who feel pleasure and pain, fulfilment and anguish. Whether it is framed as the goal of ­providing the greatest happiness for the greatest number or a ­categorical imperative to treat people as ends rather than means, it is the u­ niversal capacity of a person to suffer and flourish . . . that call on our moral concern.

86

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

It is this that perhaps sums up the need for Doing Good through Business with a social conscience, look around the office that you work in and see people. Really see them. They have an amazing potential that just needs the right environment to be released, they have a contribution to make that when added together with the contributions of everyone else can make a difference, can make progress, progress of humanity, happen for the better. Sometimes the consequences of the lack of Doing Good and social conscience can be seen in the physical health of employees; this may be exhibited in the levels of stress individuals feel, the number of people with diabetes, or in workplaces that are not safe, with accident levels or even death. However, we measure and monitor the negative side of not Doing Good, rather than focusing on measuring happiness or fulfillment, perhaps because they are harder to measure because what makes one person happy will be different for someone else. That said if an organization is ­focused on not having accidents we are not necessarily focused on safety. A better perspective, a socially conscious perspective would be Zero Harm. This not only uses systems to monitor safety performance but also works on the culture of the organization to change their attitude and behavior in the workplace to deliver a culture focused on Zero Harm. By adopting a people matter mindset, organizational leaders are taking the same psychological approach as Zero Harm. They are focused not just on numbers, but on driving a culture that has social conscience at its center. For example, rather than simply offering a flexible working policy, the focus will be developing a workplace where individuals are ­encouraged to work sensible hours, take proper breaks, separate work from home, take annual leave, and focus on what helps deliver financial, emotional, physical, and mental well-being. This approach needs a revolution in workplace culture and thinking. A business adopting an attitude that people matter would not find themselves in the crosshairs for not paying the minimum wage, unequal pay practices, safety violations, or bullying claims, because these things would be abhorrent to the culture, to the way of doing things within the business. Helping people reach their potential is more than the profit output, it is the development of an organization which thrives and in which each individual thrives too.

CHAPTER 7

A Universal Income Does this seem impracticable? Consider for a moment the vast changes that would be wrought in social life by a change which would assure to labor its full reward; which would banish want and the fear of want; and give to the humblest freedom to develop in natural symmetry. —George (2017)

As the world continues to change, the dire predictions of a world of work dominated by artificial intelligence and robotics brings into sharp focus what happens to those who are unable to secure a job, or whose options from work keeps them in penury due to the lack of living wage. The ­dilemma the world is grappling with is what to do with those who do not have enough to live on, a population size that is considered to be one that will grow in the coming years, especially in developed countries. Goldin (2018) states that research at the Oxford Martin School estimates that over the next 20 years up to 47 per cent of US jobs, around 40 per cent of UK and European jobs and a higher share of jobs in many developing countries including China, could be replaced by machines. This predication is alarming, for no other reason than that those who are already struggling are most likely to be the ones who find it difficult to find well-paid work going forward. Werner and Lim (2016) highlight that

88

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

although the UK is ranked as the sixth largest economy in the world by nominal GDP, there are more than five million people, or about 21% of the working population who struggle to make ends meet in a “low-wage” economy. Osterman (2018) showed that in the United States there is a similar story, in 2015 27 million adults between the ages of 25 and 54 earned less than 125% of the poverty line for a family of three with two ­children ($23,870). These represent 21% of the workforce in this age range. The rise of the gig economy, zero hour contracts, and temporary work where individuals are forced to take self-employed contracts is perhaps a precursor to understanding the type of job market that awaits the majority of people in the future. These types of jobs are predominately filled by women and young people. At the same time, the cost of living continues to rise with essential services such as gas, electricity, water, and food pricing all facing above inflationary rises and the welfare state being squeezed, making those on low wages to gain support from government agencies. Furthermore, there is an increasing disparity between executive pay and the pay received by “ordinary workers.” Charles Cotton, who is the CIPD’s senior performance and reward advisor, highlights that there is an assumption that the only people who achieve success are a handful of individuals at the top of the organisation . . . where the only way you can incentivise those at the top is through giving them barrel loads of money. (Jeffrey 2018) These rising inequalities are driving a perfect storm where the dystopian future so often portrayed in science fiction is becoming our current reality. Alongside this doomsday prediction is a growing move toward the introduction of a universal basic income, which horrifies many as unaffordable, leading to significantly increased levels of sovereign debt or moving resources from other budget areas such as defense or education.



A Universal Income

89

The alternative, also considered alarming, would be higher taxes and redistribution of wealth. The argument put forward by Goldin (2018) is that universal basic income wouldn’t work, because everyone would get it, and that w ­ elfare payments would be transferred from those at the ­lowest end of the scale. However, the “failure” of the universal basic income trial in F ­ inland wasn’t a pure universal income in the sense that everyone got it. The 2,000 people in the trial were all chosen from the unemployed, and the trial was a set two-year trial, not ending due to failure. There is no reason why a full roll out of universal basic income would be unconditional, that is, if you are already earning above the basic income threshold you don’t receive more, instead it is paid to those who are not at that level, to bring them up to the threshold as a minimum. In many ways like the minimum hourly wage the premise would be a guaranteed minimum income system. Other trials of universal basic income are beginning in Ontario, Holland, and an experiment in Kenya. The Scottish government is also developing plans to pilot a basic income project in Glasgow and E ­ dinburgh. At the time of writing these trials have yet to release any results. The concern from most with a capitalist mindset is that it would be socially destructive to remove the link between income and work, as if that link is somehow pure and unbroken with the current system. The issue of course is that, that link is broken. The delineation between the rich and poor means that many individuals in top management positions earn an income that would take centuries for someone to earn, in the same company but at the lower end of the salary scale. It is patently obvious that CEOs don’t do hundreds of years’ worth of work or add hundreds of years’ worth of additional value to an organization versus a lower paid employee, and yet this income to work link is tolerated and even advocated as necessary. There is a web of issues relating to who, how, and why a universal income should be paid. Goldin (2018) states that “wherever possible safety nets should be a lifeline towards meaningful work and participation in society, not a guarantee of a lifetime of dependence.” This notion of encouragement to participate is one of the biggest hurdles to a universal basic income, but fails to understand that participation is possible where safety is guaranteed. In a perfect system the entry-level jobs

90

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

would provide a degree of psychological and financial safety to encourage people to participate fully. But the capitalist system isn’t working, so their incentive to participate becomes muted. Minimum wages are touted as providing for meeting people’s economic needs but providing a “wage floor for unorganised labour” (Werner and Lim 2016). If work paid then more people would be incentivized to work, but if you work in a meaningless job and at the end of the week or month you still can’t pay your bills or put food on the table then there is no reward for participating. Businesses will tout the need for affordability and remaining competitive. But for individuals the result of a low-wage economy is the choice to live in poverty and not work, or work and live in poverty. It is not sustainable and degrading in a civil society. The antagonism from business toward paying a minimum wage, let  alone a living wage is testimony that the argument regarding participation is a faux narrative that is thrown up to place a barrier to protecting the most vulnerable in society. The determination to paint anyone on any form of benefit as a laggard and a scrounger loves to publish details of those who are robbing the system and taking that which they don’t deserve. This position fails to acknowledge that perhaps as society we have a duty to provide the vulnerable and that every person regardless of background should be treated with dignity and respect. Werner and Lim (2016) highlight “the need of households to take care of themselves and be self-sustaining” while the state and those with means have a “responsibility to provide the poor with the means to earn an income that would enable them to earn a sustainable livelihood.” Our current societal expectations is to put the onus on the poor to work, without demanding that the government and organizations provide jobs that pay equitably and ensure that wages are sustainable. Not everyone gets to eat caviar and quaff champagne, but when children are going to school hungry because their parents are struggling to afford to pay the bills then society begins to break down. Werner and Lim (2016) report that the architect of the free market economy, Adam Smith “believed in paying all workers at least what we would call today a living wage because it would ultimately benefit society in the form of increased productivity, wealth distribution and economic growth.” I agree with Goldin’s (2018) assertion that we should “radically change the way we think about income and work,” though not his rejection of universal basic income.



A Universal Income

91

The Need for a Helping Hand In the UK, there has been a 13 percent increase in food bank use with over 1.3 m 3-day emergency food supplies provided to people in crisis in a 12-month period (Bulman 2018). The reason for this rise is attributed to low income, because of benefit sanctions, delays, and changes, leading to benefit values reducing. In a country that has the fifth biggest economy the fact that one in every 200 people are homeless (Butler 2017) should be shameful enough but when the UN reports that over 40 million Americans live in poverty (Kinkade 2018), then the issue is less to do with a government or a country but instead a system which benefits the wealthy, delivers inequality as an outcome, and develops a culture of individuals in need deserving what they get. The amount of savings that individuals have, have dwindled as more people are surviving from pay check to pay check. One wrong move, an unexpected illness or layoff, can take those people that are just about managing from security to homelessness in a matter of weeks. Not being able to afford to pay for the latest gadget or home ­improvement project is one thing, providing people with a basic level of income that allows them to live free of fear is what a universal basic income seeks to provide. This is about lifting people out of poverty and enabling them to think about something other than where their next meal is coming from. Few people are lucky enough to go through life without some periods of difficulty or crisis. The fear of such a system is that it feels unfair that people get something for nothing, but the o­ pposite criticism of the current system that people get nothing or very little for something and others get a lot for doing little is often ignored. E ­ nsuring people have enough to eat, somewhere safe to sleep, and their basic needs met shouldn’t be something that is mind-blowingly radical; it is the basic building block of a civil society. I’ve complained about the Victorian work paradigm in my exploration of Temperatism, but the philanthropy shown by ­Victorian industrialists could teach us something. The R ­ owntree, ­Cadbury, and Fry families in the UK were all Quakers, which led them to ensure that they ran their commercial enterprises with a focus on ­enhancing public good. Charitable giving included the finance of public libraries, parks, swimming pools, theatres, and most notably addressing poverty. They tackled the problem from the perspective that rather than

92

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

focusing on the symptoms of poverty, they would look at the failing in society that were at the root cause. Notably, they did not believe poverty was a result of the moral failure of the poor. Their endeavors led to addressing problems such as the lack of decent affordable housing, improving working conditions, provisions of health care for workers, the supply of a pension, and the development of staff canteens to ensure their staff got a decent meal. This approach highlights that at a basic level, those working should be able to sustain themselves, and that it is a duty of society and organizations to provide work, which acknowledges a person’s worth and right to operate with dignity. Addressing economic inequality relates to the need for social sustainability, low income causes social division and a hostile environment, which is not conducive to conditions which provide ongoing economic opportunity for organizational effectiveness. Some businesspeople today, including billionaires Bill Gates and Richard Branson, are committed philanthropists giving money to a number of causes, including health care. However, the argument in this chapter is that these endeavors should not be the preserve of those civically minded or the preserve of the idle rich. Not every business can afford to build houses and contribute to the public good, but at the very least they should ensure that their employees are not subject to harm. As a first point, universal basic income isn’t simply about the state handing out benefits, it should be the amount that is considered a minimum needs to live securely, and if employers are not providing that, then they should be sanctioned. The rise of in-work poverty is probably the biggest and most unchallenged scandal that exists in modern business today. If an employee working full-time hours cannot afford to rent a house, feed themselves, and live at least with a modicum of comfort from their endeavors then they are not in work, they are in wage slavery. This is not a position that a business with a social conscience should be happy to continue. In the UK, working tax credits were introduced for families whose wages fell below a particular threshold. The need for benefits for those in work demonstrates everything that is wrong with the current organizational system. If you are in work, there should be no need for the state to support you, it speaks only of a disparity in reward for the average ­employee. If the average person is unable to secure a reasonable affordable place to live, pay bills, and eat well through earning a full-time wage, then they



A Universal Income

93

are not being paid adequately. Any organization that allows its workers to live in poverty is failing as an employer and should be bought to task. A Temperatist approach would never allow this. If a social conscience begins in the workplace then the way that an organization rewards its employees is relevant. A universal basic income shouldn’t be something that organizations should be afraid of, instead it should be something that is supported and embraced fully. If the focus is Doing Good then philanthropic notions become part of the way that the organization does business.

The Safety Net For those out of work or unable to work, there is a moral obligation on society to provide a reasonable level of support. It is not good enough that there is a form of discrimination of people at the bottom end of society to have an attitude that individuals are not deserving, or they have caused it themselves through some form of failing. It should not be impossible to survive in a modern society. It is an acknowledgment that the root cause of many people suffering poverty is a system that is steeped in injustice and inequality. For the majority of people who find themselves struggling poverty, it is because they are so close to the edge that a single bad decision or mistake can send them plummeting. Those who are born into wealth can afford to mess up and make mistakes, because there is a safety net to catch them, but if there is no one there is to catch you when you fall, mistakes can become crisis very quickly. For many, though, it is nothing that they have done that causes them to find themselves struggling; sometimes, it can be the actions of an organization, which can cause the pain. The idea that in perfect competition everyone who applies themselves correctly will receive economic benefit ignores reality. The state needs to step in because of market failure, the need to regulate to protect individuals and society from business activities that are harmful and unacceptable levels of income and wealth inequality. The need for the entrepreneur to retain the profit from their discovery and the shareholder to retain the returns from their risk is inherent in our system. But it does not account for the flip side, where individuals are the victims of circumstance, despite their best efforts. Should a child who is born into a challenging home environment be penalized because they do not have access to

94

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

health care, education opportunities, or the emotional support needed to be a functioning member of society? The question that we are confronted with is, is there anyone who deserves to fall? From a Temperatist perspective the answer to that question is a resounding No. No one should fall. Drug ­addicts should be treated, homeless should be homed, and those in poverty should be lifted out of poverty. The universal basic income therefore is a key component. If people need support they should have it. The benefits to the individual are obvious, the ability to pay for essentials, the ­opportunity for the individual to plan ahead, and the freedom for all to live with dignity. Dignity should not be the preserve of the rich and wealthy, it is an important part of the social economy. The demand that there is a link between work and income forgets that in order to participate people must feel like they have something to contribute and also be in a position for contribution. Without a home or food security an individual will find it difficult to work and contribute. Without dignity the ability of an individual to participate diminishes. Physical and mental health improvements will reduce dependency not increase it and giving people the opportunity to live with financial security enables them to have the space to contribute fully. The problem that most people see with universal basic income is affordability, but the scales are firmly tipped in favor of the wealthy. Keegan (2018) highlights that in the UK approximately £400bn of tax reliefs are given to the wealthy and corporations, which perhaps highlights that the notion that someone is getting something for nothing and is dependent is perhaps focusing on the wrong section of society. The philosophical underpinnings of capitalism are that in somehow a socialist perspective if people find themselves in need of help it is because they are in some way lazy or refusing to work. Research by Rentkova (2015) shows that “in spite of the fact that we know that very few people are poor because they have chosen their situation, there can be found a light contempt for the poor.” I once heard someone describe looters as “like socialists, thinking they can take someone else’s stuff for free.” Although it is true that there are those on the “beg” and attempting to scam the system, this minority is no more than the greedy corporate fat cats that commit financial fraud or try to scam the system at the top echelons of society. There are always bad eggs, but the majority of people



A Universal Income

95

are just doing their best to get by. Unfairness and injustice are a consequence of living under a capitalist system, the haves and the have not’s, the ever-expanding income gap is not only unintentional, it is inevitable. The question therefore becomes “to what extent there really are ethical commitments to help people in need and to what extent they are morally just and eligible” (Rentova 2015). It is understandable that those who have may feel like they are in some way being robbed but this comes from a perspective that they alone are responsible for their wealth without any contribution of anyone else, but the truth is that we are standing on someone else’s shoulders. Politicians think nothing of asking for money from donors to pay for their campaigns, charging the state living expenses or having subsidized meals in the House of Commons. But those seeking support to simply survive are considered social pariahs. What we consider allowable state support and what we consider illegitimate gains isn’t rational, it doesn’t make sense. We live in a society where it is not only legal, but somehow morally acceptable for the richest in society to pay a smaller percentage of taxes on income than the poorest, or corporations avoid paying taxes and avoid making a contribution to the society and community that they are selling too. Werner and Lim (2016) point out that “low wages impose a cost on others . . . employers who [pay] below-subsistence wages to their workers [are] social parasites.” The use of in-work benefits in the UK to supplement low wages, such as free school meals or housing benefit, highlights that it is low-paying organizations that are being subsidized by the taxpayer and exploiting workers and the state by not paying a fair wage for a fair day’s work. Vranceanu (2014) highlights that an organization is Doing Good when “they compensate people who place their resources under the control of the firm at a fair price.” However, he goes on to say that “the fair price is the market price”; to me this is the mistake, the market price is not representative of the value of an individual but is based on perception, and the perception of employees is predominately not aligned to social sustainability. The uproar over proposals for universal income ignore the fact that society is subsidizing excessive executive pay through a combination of corporations avoiding paying their fair share of tax and having to subsidize low-paid workers who are not being paid a sustainable income level. Rather than subsidize the rich, the universal income supports the poor.

96

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

Releasing Human Potential The principle of the universal income isn’t just about the duty of the state and organizations to provide a sustainable income for individuals. It goes beyond that into benefit of providing individuals with the opportunity to be able to operate outside of poverty. Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs is an old typology describing levels of motivation, but the theory has relevance in terms of what we want individuals to be able to achieve in a lifetime. If our concern is what am I going to eat, or can I keep a roof over my head, what Maslow terms as “safety needs,” then what opportunity is there for “humans to have opportunity to develop within reasonable limits all [their] faculties, physical, intellectual, moral or spiritual” (Werner and Lim 2016). Maslow (1943) termed this as self-actualization, the ability of individuals to reach their full potential. It begs the question, why organizations and the state would not want the human resource in the economy to achieve its full capability. Temperatism is more than simply about feeling good because society is supporting everyone, it is about enabling the full potential of the human race to be released throughout the world. Social conscience in business makes sense, because it delivers sustainable performance for one of an organization’s biggest resources, its people. Keeping individuals oppressed, unable to concentrate, fearful, or struggling to look after themselves has visible and costly consequences. High levels of stress, the productivity problems that Western economies are struggling with, lack of employee commitment, and low levels of much needed skills. ­Individuals can’t afford to up skill or keep their knowledge current if their income doesn’t even cover their basic needs. Werner and Lim (2016) state that, “These employers would impost costs on society, as, by exploiting and ­exhausting their workforce, they would deplete the nation’s capital stock of character, intelligence and energy and also negatively affect r­eproductive abilities.” Without a commitment to a universal basic income society curses our huge majority of individuals to low-paid jobs or the poverty trap. The result is that their self-worth is diminished, and they lose self-respect that would be received from gainful employment and a feeling that they have something to contribute. This is more than simply paying someone to do a job, it is helping individuals to realize their full capability, to use their talent to deliver a benefit beyond a task successfully completed.



A Universal Income

97

Performance literature demonstrates that teams perform b­etter when  individuals who form part of their team feel like they are ­delivering a purpose, that they are allowed to fully use their skills as a team member, and if they believe that their contribution is valued and ­valuable. Too many people go through life doing a job that sucks the very essence out of their being, and as a result they are never able to achieve their full potential as a human being. We do a job because we have to work. Graduates leave university and get a job, any job, regardless of their suitability or fit to the job or organization. People end up following a career in a job they hate. A good outcome is they stay gainfully employed, a bad outcome, they crash and burn. What a waste. If any other resource in business was treated the same way that the people resource is used the directors would be sacked for criminal neglect of their duties. We spend more time trying to control costs, than focusing on releasing the full, unfettered capability of the human resource. Gallup polls regularly demonstrate the low levels of engagement. Capitalism is supposed to be about growth, but it only focuses on financial growth at the detriment of human growth. The capitalist system does not differentiate between good products/services and bad products/services. Prostitution, drugs, guns, they are all goods that are regulated not due to free market economics, but because of a government imposing societal values about right and wrong. The exploitation of individuals and the victims of such activity is rarely considered a consequence of market outcomes, it doesn’t count the cost of an individual who is forced into slavery or deprivation, giving consideration to what they could have been had their circumstances been different. When you meet someone who is fully working in their talent, and developing their talent potential it is wonderful to behold. In this circumstance you will find someone motivated, innovative, going the extra mile, and delivering added value to the organization . . . and yet, these people are the exception rather than the rule. Doing Good is good for society. It is good for individuals, and it ­delivers growth. This isn’t an either-or equation, it is an “and.” How much more could we achieve, as a human race, if individuals were free from the shackles of poverty and deprivation and have the ability to be all that they can be. That is what Temperatism seeks to deliver. It is more

98

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

than delivering profit maximization, it is a broader objective of creating value for society. It does stop exploitation from the rich who are happy to be social parasites, and instead releases the untapped potential so that they can contribute to society. The universal income therefore asks us to reevaluate what worth we place on a human life and what value humans, fully released from poverty and want, can truly deliver.

CHAPTER 8

Reputation and Legitimacy Don’t fear failure so much that you refuse to try new things. The saddest summary of a life contains three descriptions: could have, might have and should have. —Anon

Transforming our society is something in which we all have a shared ­interest. Seeking a society where we can enjoy greater levels of equality is a necessary journey if we are to develop a sustainable economic system. Many will argue that greater equality is a fanciful dream or a threat to our current levels of prosperity. But history teaches us that ideas, which pursue a transformation of the existing situation, have always been met with doubt, concern, and resistance. The development of society has rarely been the result of a government edict or new legislation, rather it has been as a result of small actions taken by individuals who do not hold any form of authority or power. We often forget that it is the victories of the powerless that are most significant in transforming humanity. In the aftermath of the 2008 credit crunch, and the period of sovereign debt and austerity that has continued to haunt Western society as a result, it seems that the world has been caught napping and we have barely roused from the coma that capitalism has induced upon us. As recovery stutters and splutters with renewed levels of nationalism and retrenchment from free trade and globalization, there are a few lone voices calling into the wind, but no great noise that accompanies a generation that is disturbed by the situation in which they find themselves. What is apparent is that the lack of morality and lack of care that has been building in our society, economy,

100

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

and political system over the last four decades has created an edifice that is now beginning to crumble. Our feelings toward money and finance have shifted from being a love affair to one of suspicion and hate. Finance and monetary rewards no longer hold the key to satisfaction, and the pursuit of wealth has shown us only gilded prisons that fail to satisfy. We all discuss our frustrations but instead of standing up and being counted each one of us squeaks like a mouse caught in a trap, powerless and without hope. Some of the statistics that are included in this book are remarkable and despite information like this being widely available we continue to create powerful reasons as to why change can’t happen. But what is clear is the majority of the wealth is in the hands of a very small minority, which continues to grow its wealth while the majority find their financial position diminishing. Which also means that the real power for making change happen lies not with the minority who wish to maintain the status quo, but with the majority who need and want the current situation to change. It is essential that society stop its passive acceptance of exploitation from the economic and political forces that currently wield power. Accepting that we have the power to make change happen is the first and most important element of any change movement occurring, today or at any point in the future. Regime change is possible. If the surprise results of the 2016 US Presidential Election and the UK Brexit referendum have taught those who assume they have power, it is that people power is powerful. Changing a capitalist market system in a democratic society isn’t as frightening as changing a dictatorship. The choice that faces us today is whether we choose to continue to be victims of the system or pursue a new idea, a different way of thinking and begin to struggle and resist against the norm. We have been abandoned by a political system, which has been instrumental in birthing the system of fast capitalism that has been so detrimental to our society. To date we have done little but tinker around the edges, hoping that the fresh lick of paint and a facelift will remove the rot that is at the core of the capitalist system. What this book proposes and the purpose of developing a new ideology is that we need to be inspired to think and act differently, to be able to articulate and demand that society becomes a better place for us to live and work and to develop a vision for what different could look like. In short, Temperatism requires a market system that functions with a purpose of Doing Good ahead of any priority for profit or private interest.



Reputation and Legitimacy

101

It needs society, government, and the economy to work in partnership to deliver effectiveness as well as efficiency for the betterment of human ­society. Equality, full employment, a paternalistic state, and environmental protection are all necessary components of a Temperatist society based on principles of Basic Goods and moral, ethical, and values driving an agenda for Doing Good. Mechanisms for measuring the change toward Doing Good include: • Innovation aligned to ecological footprint • Fair trade relations and fair economy • The addition of a moral dimension to political, social, and economic discourse • Reconnection of society, mankind, and nature • The development of environmental and social codes of conduct • An expansion of the planet, people, and profit agenda • Long-term time horizons

The Legitimacy of the Capitalist System Capitalism only works if there is confidence in the system and if we choose to uphold it, the market is a social construction of our own making. If we don’t like it, we have the liberty to change it. History, through the ­examples of leaders such as Gandhi, teaches us that change can be brought about when we stop cooperating with a system that we disagree with. Lewis et al. (2016) define legitimacy as “conformation to socially constructed, generally accepted social norms and expectations and values.” Changing the world begins with our actions, some people are ­actively seeking to change the world, challenging socially acceptable goals in a socially unacceptable manner, while others are waiting for change to happen for them. The new generation is making choices about their lives and careers that are a direct reaction to the excesses of muscular entrepreneurialism. Recent studies show that people in their early twenties . . . don’t want to work for big corporations. They consider face-to-face time with family and friends sacrosanct and many say they get together with friends or family

102

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

every day. They list their most important job requirements as; finding work that helps others, allows them to impact their world, surrounds them with idealistic and committed co-workers and ­requires creativity. And nearly three-fourths say that how they spend their time is more important than how much money they make. (­Rosenburg 2011) The next generation wants something different and is willing to make sacrifices in regard to their own self-interest to achieve it. In the business world a new breed of entrepreneurs and business leaders is emerging who are pursuing something other than a profit purpose and discovering that they can still make profit while Doing Good. They are challenging the pragmatic legitimacy promoted by Suchman (1995) of having an economic focus. Risk and reward have become intertwined with an ability to deliver more than just profit, and wealth can be redistributed while still rewarding those who are Doing Good. This, therefore, seeks to fulfill the moral legitimacy (Suchman 1995) regarding societal welfare and what is perceived to be the right thing to do. Kollen (2014) highlights that the societies that an organization is operating in convey with it “a responsibility for maintaining or ameliorating the working and living conditions of the people that live in these societies, especially of those who work for the company.” We must all make a deliberate and conscious decision to drive a new agenda and make the difference that we want to see happen in our own lives. The issue that we all face with capitalism is that we like it if our self-interests are taken care of. Our very own self-interest feeds the system that exploits and robs us and so we become slaves to the system, rather than fighting to be free to be whom we really can be. Our history teaches us that it is possible to raise awkward and unwanted questions regarding the morality of our actions and collectively develop a new paradigm, which abolishes greed and our inhumanity to our fellow man. This causes us to examine our cognitive legitimacy (Suchman 1995) in regard to what we take for granted, the need for moral activism, and engaging in ethical practices. The fact is that many of the inequalities wrought by the capitalist system that existed in Britain at the time of the abolition of slavery movement remain, especially in regard to the ill-fated oppressed workers in the “Satanic Mills” of industrialized Britain. Temperatism urgently



Reputation and Legitimacy

103

urges an unparalleled modern moral movement in championing the abolition of capitalism. Not just because it is right but also because it is necessary to introduce the idea that we need to do right things. This is where business is so important, because they are absolutely central to our society and life, and if they are not operating with a social conscience but rather appealing to the bottom line without regard of the damage being done to people or planet then what hope do we have? The populism of 2016 reinforces the individualism and selfishness of the capitalist consumer. It’s about America First, or having control without thought about the impact that has on the rest of humanity. We all share “spaceship earth” but rather than realizing we are all on the same ship, we act as if we are on separate frigates and are fighting each other for dominance in space. The problem with a civil war upon a self-contained vessel is that wild shooting results in damaging the very existence of everyone on board. When it comes to reputation, corporate wrongdoing once exposed can be very damaging, not just in terms of damages paid in legal wrangling, but a loss of trust that is difficult to recover. Jan De Graaf (2016) highlights that assumptions regarding ethics and corporate social responsibility should not be treated as a separate objective: “Ethics and markets cannot be separated.” They are integrated, and Doing Good supports the wider stakeholder ­interests and the shareholder interests. Jensen (2001) argues that ethics and personal integrity are critical in the market.

Changing the World Changing the world requires something that is more meaningful than the self-interest that capitalism drives in us. Human beings are created for a purpose, not just to exist in splendid isolation. Grabbing hold of the truth of our existence may appear fanciful, but ultimately purpose is what guides us and makes us feel happy, fulfilled, and content. Doing Good is not simply about making people equal and achieving harmony. Instead Temperatism, as an ideology, seeks to create meaning in people’s lives; to put purpose at the center of our activity and in providing Basic Goods to ensure that each and every member of the human race is able to achieve fullness of self. The irony being that Temperatism achieves exactly what capitalism says is important. The fulfillment of “self.” But “Self ” in

104

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

Temperatism is an output, cultivated through the activity of Doing Good. Working together individuals can cause change in the behavior of other groups. If banks and organizations find that large groups of their customers and employees no longer accept the status quo and more ­importantly have changed their behavior to demonstrate that change, then they too will be forced to change their behavior. It is important to remind people and remember that the market is a social construct. It is, by the very fact, a construct, required to bend to the demands of those who take part in it. If demand falls for products and services which are created by organizations that pursue a profit agenda and instead demand increases for products and services delivered by organizations that are Doing Good, guess what? More organizations will begin following a Doing Good agenda. In the 1980s eco-business was the preserve of the loony left and hippies, today it is a central part of shareholder reporting, and big organizations are campaigning for change themselves. Doing Good through business with a social conscience is the only way that societal change can be achieved, as Nair (2016) states: corporations have become a powerful and dominant institutions. They have reached to every corner of the globe in various sizes, ­capabilities and influences. Their governance has influenced economies and ­various aspects of the social landscape . . . [There] is a greater need for accountability. Whether you are CEO, an entrepreneur, small business owner, manager, or worker, our lives need to mean something, and change comes from the most unexpected places. The very entities that are responsible for so many ills in society are the hope of change at the center of ­Temperatism. A change in the way organizations run themselves will result in change for good across the globe. However, Blodget et al. (2014) point out that currently there is an “overall lack of positive relationship between ethical aspirations and financial performance,” arguing that “corporate actions are more relevant than CSR statements.” Organizations can’t just say that they believe in Doing Good, they’ve got to Do it too! It is the acts of organizations that will result in both sustainable profits and ethical and altruistic benefits to society as a whole.



Reputation and Legitimacy

105

Of course it is not always possible to change those who should change, and the fallout of the global recession has demonstrated that despite the anger of both the public and the government, the banking sector has done little to change its behavior. The reason is because the financial sector is holding us to ransom. We need money to flow in order for our economy to remain stable. Individuals can of course make changes in regard to their personal banking, but it is the institutional investors who need to make the biggest changes. The banks were too big to fail because of the social requirement for a functioning finance sector. But unless you are extremely patient and are willing to wait for your great grandchildren to benefit from changes in the economy to take place, it is our generation who need to take the bull by the horns. Waiting for change may be too late for planet earth and time is part of the answer, but also support for alternatives and demonstrating the success of Doing Good will be needed to change the hard hearts of the capitalist diehards.

The Power to Change One of the biggest resources for driving change that Temperatism has at its disposal is at the center of the ideology, people. Social capital may seem a poor contender when pitted against political or economic capital but there is strength in numbers. You only have to look at history to be heartened by the strength of people power to get change onto the statute book, whether it is the civil rights movement in America, Votes for Women, the Arab Spring, or equal pay in Iceland. Regardless of your income, your education, or your social standing, every person has value in a movement to bring a change for good. Bringing together the voices of one or two academics or writers is not the same as demonstrating with the might of thousands. Social capital doesn’t just come from feet on the street. Strength of voice can come from utilizing the resources at our disposal. Social networks, information, and collective action are all tools that can be used to bring together people—and we are stronger together than we are alone. Change to our economic system will never happen unless we gather the power at our disposal. Lacking financial capital does not mean that Temperatism lacks the necessary power to build a strategy for change.

106

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

There is a huge value to community power and social capital that goes beyond any dollar sign or big budget advertising campaign. The election campaign for the Presidency in America may have been fought with a $2bn spending spree, but creating a new identity regarding what makes us human and what the purpose of wealth is, can start in the living room of every home. If we all commit to changing one thing then that is one mighty big change that will happen in society as a whole. Many will recognize the dissatisfaction that they feel with modern life, the loneliness and loss of community is profound, but perhaps most of all, the overwhelming grind that self-interest has generated which is exhausting to maintain. Legitimizing a new approach means delegitimizing what has gone before. It is interesting to note that following Charlottesville in 2017, where it appeared that racists were given permission to voice their vile opinions, the 1-year anniversary was a damp squib because only 20 alt-right protesters turned up. Why? Even with the president’s “good people on both sides” defense, the condemnation and rejection of such behavior was loud and supported by the majority. It doesn’t mean that attitudes have disappeared but it was roundly rejected as legitimate by the community at large, summed up as “this is not who we are.” That’s a powerful sentiment. If Doing Good is who we are, and we reject individualism, wealth creation for wealth’s sake, and the seeming confusion between supporting everyone to be the best they can be and a perverse idea that everyone is on the beg, then maybe, just maybe, change is possible.

The Power Is in Our Hands It’s very easy to focus on what is going wrong and how awful everything is, just as it is easy on an individual level to focus on what we have got wrong, or what we can’t do. But the power is in our hands to change things. It is consumer spending that accounts for large proportions of gross domestic product, it is the voter who elects government, and we, the people, can have and should be able to influence government policy, our local communities, and the organizations in which we work. Focusing on the reputation of an organization to decide whether it is offering not just the product or service that you want, but contributing to Doing Good is an opportunity to begin a sea change. If economically it makes



Reputation and Legitimacy

107

sense for organizations to have a social conscience, then they will make the changes necessary. On this basis we, the consumers, have the power to drive the agenda. There have been attempts in the past to boycott certain organizations, such as Nestle, over its poor practices, and this has been met with limited success, but rather than choosing not to engage with an organization who doesn’t, it is positively choosing to patronize organizations which do. The laws of competitive advantage mean that if market share and share of wallet is shifting to organizations with a social conscience then organizations will adopt Doing Good policies to compete. It is the simple rules of the market. We live in an age where making positive changes to support organizations with the right approach is made easier through the internet. It might be hard to give up your Amazon Prime addiction because of their poor employment practices and low contribution to society through using tax loopholes. It is equally hard to stop eating Doritos due to their use of palm oil, because let’s be honest, humans are creatures of habit, and we enjoy our favorite treats. No one said that changing the world wouldn’t require sacrifices, but change, even change that is good for the world, is hard.

The Rationality of Not Seeking Change In the area of organizational development and change management all too often managers are confounded by the fact that the employees resist any form of change, whether the changes are better for the organization, will secure their jobs, and will most probably make the employees’ lives better. Organizations spend thousands of pounds and many hours putting together information packs and communication plans to explain the changes, but no amount of information, no matter how rational, will seemingly move those who chose not to be moved. What is more frustrating is that those who refuse to toe the line and who engage in acts of corporate terrorism will be able to justify their bad behavior with a perfectly rational and logic line of reasoning—even if the rational remains unreasonable. Further investigation will also unveil the truth, which is that the most reluctant will invent fabrications about the real motives of those trying to push for change, even if those reasons are nothing more than a lie to make it all seem justified.

108

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

Human behavior, the human mind, and each individual’s personality are nothing if not curious and fascinating. Individuals don’t like to consider themselves as being irrational. We need to deceive ourselves into believing that our, often, destructive behavior is rational. If we are unable to cope with a current situation we may begin to regress, acting out like a petulant teenager, or we might use a displacement defense where we know we have to be strong, so we take out our frustration on a process of change that makes us feel fearful. Finally we might hide from and refuse to acknowledge the change that we are experiencing, by repressing that which we are finding intolerable from our conscious mind and continuing as if nothing has changed at all. We pursue a belief that change is impossible and then put great effort into proving that we were right to have that belief. In trying to bring about social, political, and economic change, it is important for all of us to consider our culture and how people are acting as a group, not just individually. When individuals are unsure how to behave they will look to the community of which they are a part to understand what the norms are, which are usually driven by their peers. If there is someone who strongly represents the group displaying signs of cognitive dissonance, then that will determine what reaction the group will have as a whole to the change situation. If those who are opinion formers believe Temperatism is nothing more than a utopian dream, then the resistance will grow. But if enough of the human community decided that they want to make the change, then change will shift with the group because no one wants to be rejected. Individuals who have a lot to lose and in the current hierarchy are in a privileged position will seek to maintain the traditions that keep them in a position of privilege regardless of the expense to others. Destructive behavior in a change situation will always be strongest where individuals who fear change the most are in a position of influence within the wider community. It is expected that the biggest critics of Temperatism will be those who benefit most from the capitalist system. Shareholders, big businesses, and the banks and financial institutions have both the money and power to try and convince us that Temperatism will never work. But then they don’t want to make it work, because they are happy with a situation where the exploited continue in servitude and they allowed to pursue wealth for no other reason than because they can.



Reputation and Legitimacy

109

Societal Change—One Organization at a Time Reform is essential, but the reform that is needed must be comprehensive, systemic, simple, and fair. Revolution rarely starts with one action, but is as a result of many things, big and small, all building momentum until the energy of the combined actions develops in such a way that the only option is to move forward. Change sometimes seems to occur instantly, such as the 2018 #MeToo movement, but rarely do big revolutions occur over one small thing. In writing this book, the evidence suggests that this contribution is one of many. Temperatism is not a series of books that stand alone calling into the wilderness hoping that someone will hear a lonely voice. Instead it joins a growing body of work, commentary, and research that all says the same thing—we need to change and we need to change now. Temperatism will need what Burnes described as a continuous transformational model of change, which has two ­important implications. First, there needs to be more democratic participation in the change process since sources of innovation are unpredictable. And, second, the change process must follow a middleof-the-road perspective between small-scale, incremental changes and large-scale, radical changes because the effects and consequences are also unpredictable. (Luhman and Cunliffe 2013) We must not wait for government to make the changes that are needed for a fairer society, but we must at an individual, local, community, and organization level begin to act on the areas that require change. Simple but effective actions include changing our suppliers to institutions that have strict ethical investment policies, taking our environmental actions beyond pavement recycling and instead “cooperating” with an eye on sustainability, and demanding representation from our politicians rather than limiting our political participation to election years. Finally, taking responsibility for Doing Good at an organizational level, so that we can in our own small way begin a movement of change that to begin with may seem insignificant but plants the seeds for change to happen, in an office building, in the head office, across the world, in a sector, an industry, and

110

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

then onward. Being the first to do something new is daunting, similar to being the first to start dancing on an empty dance floor. But once one person starts breaking some moves, others feel more confident to join in. You may be the organization brave enough to step out into an empty space, or you may need a group of Temperatist-minded organizations to join in partnership to make that step; whatever your comfort zone for action, find it, do it, and don’t hold back. Your organization can gain a reputation as the organization that was Doing Good first. Rosa Parks, the lady who refused to give up her seat on the bus for a white person, may not have been intending to be the catalyst behind the civil rights movement in America. It was her action, one small act of demanding to be treated as if she was equal, that changed history. If everyone who reads this book changes their organizational practices toward Doing Good by just 1 percent, one small Temperatist act, then we will have begun breaking ground for Temperatism to become a real movement and not simply an idea written by someone at their kitchen table.

CHAPTER 9

Stewards of Planet Earth Growing numbers of people are beginning to realize that capitalism is the uncontrollable force driving our ecological crisis, only to become frozen in their tracks by the awesome implications of this insight. —Kovel

The environment and ecology of the planet earth is necessary for the provision of specific factors such as breathable air, habitable conditions, and the ability to sustain life, which are necessary for humanity to survive and flourish. The interaction between the environment, society, and technological aspects of our endeavors is essential in understanding our role as stewards of planet earth. Temperatism as an ideology promotes the value, which supports harmony between humanity and the natural environment. Over the past decade, there has been a greater degree of challenge as to the rightness of industrialization without recourse to questioning our responsibility to support organized and active participation in ­environmental stewardship. In the past businesses engaged in large-scale industrial projects to manufacture products that would solve societal or political issues, with little consideration as to the environmental impact of such technology, or indeed the subsequent cost of human activity on the wider environment, not least the sustainability of plant and animal life. Our focus on consumption and materialism, as well as the pursuit of growth at all costs has come into conflict with the need to preserve and conserve natural resources.

112

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

For a long time in the West prosperity was taken for granted, growth was and always would be, and we would continue to enjoy the riches that the earth provided. As a result organizations and politicians ignored the damage that was being done, is being done, to the wider environment. In our pursuit of the good life, we have plundered the good and destroyed life in the natural world; we have disturbed the natural order and failed to faithfully and sustainably manage nature. Prosperity and harmony with nature is possible, but we have yet to learn how to achieve one without failing at the other. Even today as ice shelves break away, sea levels rise, oceans fill with plastic, and the tipping point for temperature rises gets ever closer, we still fail to take responsibility for the external costs of our actions. Along with the eradication of global poverty, the restoration of balance between man and the environment are the two biggest challenges facing humanity today. Since we are social creatures, doing things differently, changing to such an extent means that we have to go outside group norms. Don’t believe me? The terms Tree Hugger, eco-warrior, and nature loving hippy have for a long time been used as insults and denote that the person acting with a belief structure that puts the environment first is in some way uncivilized. We still cringe slightly at the do-gooders who wrap their food up with beeswax-covered paper instead of plastic food wrap and feel that those who choose to eat organic food are in some way judging themselves as being better than the rest of us minions who buy bulk from the local Walmart. Even those organizations that are pursuing green and environmentally friendly agendas want to avoid focusing on the holistic aspect of protecting Mother Nature with “green agendas” and “environmental impact studies” to wrap their actions up in more acceptable business language of sustainability, Plan A, and corporate social responsibility. God forbid that these organizations should say that they care about the planet or care about people. That said, there is an acknowledgment that environmental issues which constitute a dimension of corporate ­social responsibility (CSR), have become important concerns not only for environmentalists but also for consumers, investors and society as a whole. The government, via regulations and subsidies, as well as consumers and investors, via their choice bias towards responsible



Stewards of Planet Earth

113

companies, demonstrate the wide interest in environmental protection. Faced with these demands, companies that may not have felt concerned now find themselves obliged to respond to the demand for the creation of strategies and policies related to environmental ­protection. (Tebini et al. 2016) Regardless of the mainstream acceptance of climate change, organizations still pollute, the climate change deniers continue to spread conspiracy theories, and dark forces in the business world continue to hide or try to explain away the real impact of their activities. A recent court case found agro-chemical company Monsanto, a manufacturer of weed killer Roundup, responsible for poisoning a caretaker, leaving him with terminal cancer. The company that owns Monsanto, German agri-giant Bayer, has however disputed the 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) and International Agency for Research on Cancer report findings, arguing that its products do not cause cancer. In a statement the company said: “Bayer is confident, based on the strength of the science, the conclusions of regulators around the world and decades of experience, that glyphosate is safe for use and does not cause cancer when used according to the label” and would “continue to vigorously defend this product, which has a 40 years history of safe use.” This response, which rejects scientific findings and instead relies on assertions that all is well, is not new. Whether it is tobacco companies hiding research findings that smoking kills, car companies cheating tests to bypass environmental regulations, or mining companies of various persuasions poisoning drinking water avoiding responsibility has a long and illustrious corporate history.

Relying on Our Ability to Fix What Is Broken Human ingenuity has created technology, which has allowed us to harness natural resources and turned them into assets that are of significant value to our society. Indeed Tebini et al. (2016) argue that the “reduction of environmental impacts can represent a considerable investment for industrial companies; however, the gains in terms of efficiency, product differentiation, and access to new markets cannot be disregarded.” The changes toward green business practices have in part been driven

114

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

by industry regulations, environmental laws, and, more recently, the concerns of the consumer as to the environmental impact of products. But the weakness of regulation and competition for scarce resources has meant that we are creating a natural disaster of global proportions. When the president of the United States pulls out of the first international agreement on climate change claiming it is a bad deal, and promoting an agenda of climate denial, it is difficult for an agenda which is focused on us taking responsibility for the environment to be taken seriously. The hostility toward regulation is endemic and failures that have been experienced in the financial market should serve as a warning of the potential problems that are being created in the environment because of a lack of robustness in regulating ownership and the use of natural resources. Take, for example, the current context of the environmental peril that our planet is in. If we don’t change the way we do things then our grandchildren will quite possibly face extinction. The problem is that we have accepted the truth of “plenty” and of not having to count the external costs of our actions for such a long time that the rules and expectations of 21st-century human culture, especially in the Western World, is currently stopping us from acting rationally in the best interests of our long-term survival. There appears to be a misaligned faith in our ability to develop technology, which will deliver innovations, which will solve the problems with carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases. But technology alone will not solve the problem of excessive reliance on fossil fuels, nor will it help us to be less wasteful. Instead, like a person embarking on a journey to lose weight, we must change our attitude and behavior toward consumption and increase our understanding of enoughness if we are to become part of the change rather than expecting change to happen without our input. Too often we embrace technology, which helps us to become environmental friendly. However, because we “save” energy we find no reason to reduce our consumption and, instead, increase our expectations of what living standards are acceptable, leading to greater levels of energy consumption. “As many countries have adopted smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, national emissions have usually continued to rise despite the increase efficiency” (Wilkinson and Pickett 2010). For example, television sets have become more energy efficient. But rather than reducing energy consumption, we have bought bigger televisions



Stewards of Planet Earth

115

and rather than having one television in a house, we now have a television in every room, in addition to extra gadgets such as digital television boxes, surround sound, Blu-ray players, and multimedia “on-demand” technology. The overall consumption of energy has therefore grown, even if the humble television set is more energy efficient than before.

Who Owns Nature? The argument between environmentalists and economists over the issue of who has ownership of natural assets is a complex one. When someone creates something themselves it appears fair that they should own that which they have created, but what about something that is essentially “free” to those who come across it? Whether it is precious minerals, oil, water, or land, the assets that planet earth endows upon humanity for its use cannot be claimed to be the property of anyone, and whether they should be used for our consumption today or saved for the use of future generations, the questions of stewardship regarding natural assets isn’t an easy one to resolve. There are of course immediate problems of ownership of a natural resource. On the one hand, it can be argued that the companies that bottle water, drill for oil, or mine for minerals should be rewarded for taking something out of the ground. But what if, like Nestle, which is bottling 50 million gallons of water from 10 natural springs, which form part of the Sacramento municipal water supply, despite not having a valid permit in all the areas it pumps from and the state being drought-stricken. The water is sold to Nestle by the city-state at the same rate that the residents pay for it, and Nestle bottles it to make a profit. Although residents are facing water restrictions, and there is not being enough rainfall to replenish the aquifers, rivers, and lakes, the company is cavalier in its pursuit of profit. Indeed, during a major dispute in 2014, which led the plant being closed for 1 day, the former Nestle CEO was quoted as saying that water was not a fundamental human right. The situation and many other horror stories of environmental piracy turn the pursuit of profit into a simple case of plunder. From a Temperatist perspective, a sustainability perspective rejects the profit agenda at all costs. It demands that organizations respond appropriately to environmental challenges and approaches natural resources from the perspective of responsible planning and ethical management.

116

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

For assets such as oil that depletes and cannot be replaced, saving them for future generations cannot be defended immemorial, at some point they will be used up and the asset will be gone forever. The onus on the generation using the depleted asset is to make sure that it is not wasted and that the most beneficial use is made from it while it remains. How they are used, however, must be considered in the wider context than simply private enterprise. The use of world resources for Doing Good for ­society as a whole must be considered. The current situation means that the oligarchs maintain possession of such resources, at the cost to the wider society in the pursuit of private gain. Such possession has little to do with creativity, innovation, or development but rather is a result of luck, either as an accident of birth or being in the right place at the right time. However, there are natural assets that renew, such as fish stocks or agricultural land. Assets, which can in the right circumstances naturally, replace themselves. In respect to these resources, the current generation of humanity has a duty to ensure that its stewardship leaves the asset in at the least the same place, if not a better place than when we took possession of it. In this respect the environmentalists win the argument over the economists, at least in an ethical sense. We cannot allow the pursuit of profit to decide whether fishing the oceans and the extinction of fish species happens and especially when such a resource is part of our global food resource. The current situation of fishing quotas is absurd and ­archaic, leading to abuses and profiteering at the expense of a resource that, with continued mismanagement, cannot be recreated or fixed by a later generation if destroyed by our own.

Growth versus Sustainability Capitalism relies on growth, and market reactions on an organization’s share price are based on whether the organization has achieved growth and has hit its stated growth targets. Even if an organization is growing, if the market is unimpressed with its growth rate, share prices can tumble. But more growth, too fast growth is not necessarily a good thing, especially from an environmental perspective. There needs to be a balance between growth which contributes to the depletion of natural resources and reducing environmental costs in the delivery of the betterment of



Stewards of Planet Earth

117

humanity. There also is a need to balance the rights of the current generation versus the rights of the future generations to inherit an environment, which can sustain life and the rights of human society over the rights of the natural world. It isn’t a case of should we preserve our environment, but is about taking up a mandated role as steward of planet earth, taking what we need without resorting to plunder and giving back as well as just receiving. Nature is different from the things that man builds for himself; it is part of a symbiotic relationship, which requires mutuality and careful attention. Nature as an asset is different for our normal understanding of assets, in a similar way that humans as a resource differ from other forms of capital resources. It isn’t that we should use natural resources to help us progress, but as we progress the well-being of the resource should be part of the calculation. The environment is not a static display in a m ­ useum that must be preserved as it is, but rather it is careful management in a dynamic of cooperation, which can be used to enhance the lives of ­humanity and other species. For example, the use of gray water to flush toilets reduces the need to draw water from aquifers or drain rivers or lakes. Make sure that water we draw for drinking is replenished and, critically, our waste is properly dealt with to avoid pollution of the waterways. Often organizations view environmental protection policies as something that adds cost to the business, but “Negative environmental ­actions damage financial performance, both in the short- and long-term. The persistence of this negative effect of irresponsible actions over time shows that it is important for companies to avoid these kinds of actions” (Tebini et al. 2016). But it is more than a cost/benefit equation, we must accept the obligations of stewardship, delivering a management agenda based on ethics and values and a planned use of natural resources, which ensures that their full potential is used in the betterment of humanity. There are certain natural assets which once used will be gone forever. Oil and mineral wealth once depleted cannot be replaced and therefore it is essential that such natural assets be used strategically and with as little waste as possible. The loss of such natural assets to future generations is acceptable if we can demonstrate that we have not wasted such natural assets. However, other natural assets, such as food, animals, and plants, are reproductive and provide nature’s own renewable resource. It is the renewable assets toward which mankind must demonstrate the greatest level of husbandry

118

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

to ensure that the environment is able to reproduce abundantly the assets that we can enjoy now and potentially forever. Although we need to meet the requirements of the present generation, we should always be mindful of the lives of those people who are yet to be born. We cannot mortgage the health of the environment at the expense of future generations. The environmental argument should not be about whether economic development and the pursuit of prosperity are good or bad. We must not allow the green agenda to wrap any proposal for development in a blanket of greed and unsustainable theft of natural resource, just as capitalism must stop treating environmentalists as tree-hugging romanticists who aren’t living in the real world. Economic growth and societal development are necessary if we are to alleviate global poverty. But the real question that we must address is how we achieve this in a way that is sensitive to the environment and is sustainable. Once again ethics and values ­become a central part of the argument for and against growth and development. It is in the arena of environmentalism, more than any other area of ­development, that partnership and a holistic approach to stakeholder management are necessary when organizations are making decisions that will have an impact on the natural environment. The question should not be whether it is right to consider external costs of organizational ­decisions, but how those decisions impact the wider environment and to what ­degree are those costs acceptable or how much of that cost must the organization be obliged to restore. Self-interest does not service society or the environment where organizational decisions have consequences that impact beyond civil society. The introduction of the triple bottom line—people, planet, and profit—is an interesting development in recent years. It shows, once and for all, that organizations finally understand that they have a responsibility to the planet if they are to continue to be successful. From a strategic perspective, there are good reasons for organizations to adopt environmentally friendly policies. Increasing costs of oil and gas and the demand for managing costs via supply chain efficiencies as well as protecting Brand reputation are all good business reasons to pursue a green agenda. But there is also a growing awareness of a conflict between depleted natural resources and a growing demand, especially from China and India, for a greater share of natural resources previously reserved for Western



Stewards of Planet Earth

119

economies on the back of colonialism. As costs rise, organizations are required to consider alternatives, which provide efficiency, cost reduction, and reducing reliance on shrinking resources, to ensure that organizations do not face shortages and resource crisis in their operations. However, there has more recently been a steep change in the understanding regarding our impact on planet earth. There is a growing consensus that global warming and environmental pressures not only will impact countries in regard to environmental disasters but now constitute a potential threat to our very life on earth. The industrial revolution did much to damage the environment, and what is becoming increasingly obvious is that Capitalism is incompatible with the long-term sustainability of human life on earth. Quite possibly we have reached a crossroads where humanity has finally discovered a convergence between industrialization, technology, and environmental awareness, which has created a dawning realization that we can no longer continue the way that we always have. Humanity is at an environmental crunch point where our continued pursuit of growth and abuse of natural resources has become unsustainable. We may yet avoid environment collapse, but research suggests that our use of natural resources, even those that are renewable, is exacting too high a cost on the ecosystem and the result will be greater levels of disruption to civil society than we have yet experienced. The problem is how quickly we can change direction and to what extent the damage is irreversible. We are faced with a choice, which requires a different economic system as well as the need to harness the productive capabilities, innovation, and inventiveness of the human entrepreneurial spirit for the protection of the wider environment and nature. One question that must be addressed in regard to the stewardship of our planet is in regard to that of growth and whether any pursuit of growth is compatible with a “green agenda.” Many campaigners, especially those who are concerned with climate change and sustainability, argue that it is necessary for society to focus on zero growth in order to avoid environmental crisis. To make such an argument is to assume that there is evidence that suggests that all growth is bad. In studying capitalism, its focus on growth and profit as outcomes can be seen in the negative consequences such a pursuit has inflicted on the world. But without

120

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

growth can it be argued that there is enough for everyone to go round? Since there is a finite set of resources in the world, exponential growth is unlikely, unless we take to the stars and start trekking beyond this planet’s boundaries. But given that commercial space travel and certainly industrial space travel is many years off, where does that leave us today in regard to the argument for or against zero growth? Growth and the generation of wealth must be pursued for the purpose of something, not as a purpose in itself. Using environmental r­esources to improve medicine, produce food, and create room for leisure pursuits are reasons for growth to be considered. But such growth needs to be measured differently from traditional economic measures regarding GDP and consumption. Measuring the level of natural resources, especially in regard to rate of renewal, is a more holistic approach to whether growth and environmental stewardship are compatible. If the purpose of an organization were to switch from a profit agenda to that of Doing Good, then growth would become something we would all seek more of. After all, if, in achieving growth, an organization, government, or society were able to do more good, then growth would be something to be applauded. Since Doing Good would also involve Doing Good in regard to environmental concerns, would it be safe to assume that all growth would be good? Take, for example, the problem of global warming. Growth in this area, while achieving the goal of Doing Good, would involve first ensuring that global warming was slowed down and that any activity minimized the risk of increasing global warming. Second, Doing Good would also reward those organizations and individuals who created i­nnovative and inventive solutions to global warming—whether that be technological or agricultural. In these areas, under a Temperatist ideology growth would be acceptable and indeed encouraged. However, growth which had a detrimental impact on the environment or society, such as building super highways out of concrete, expanding cities by destroying natural habit, or destroying rainforests for logging, would not meet the criteria of Doing Good. Alternative resources, methods of production, and solutions would need to be found for growth to be encouraged, and organizations and governments will be forced to create entrepreneurial and innovative solutions to overcome the barriers to growth dictated by “Doing Good.” Temperatism doesn’t therefore suggest that growth should be abandoned, or



Stewards of Planet Earth

121

even that growth is undesirable, but that growth should be given a social and environmental context as to whether it is necessary or compelling.

Ownership and Accountability Although organizations and nations can claim to have ownership of land and the earth’s life-sustaining resources, it cannot be left in the hands of the self-interested few to decide on their use at the detriment of the long-term survival of life on this planet. Organizations must have responsibility for and demonstrate a commitment to environmental stewardship and citizenship that respects “nature, universal rights, economic justice and a culture of peace.” And those organizations imbued their purpose with a “responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life and to future generations” (Mayer 2007). We must accept that we do not have true ownership of the natural resources, but rather that we are loaned them for a period of time and must ensure that we return them for future generations in the same, if not better, condition that they were given to us. Big business has repeatedly demonstrated that it is more concerned with its own self-interest than that of the environment or legacy. Though many would argue that capitalism can achieve positive environmental mechanisms and point to the rise in “green business” initiatives, for most of the capitalist establishment environmental issues, just like poverty, is left in the hands of government. But the difficulty with government is that it is influenced by big business. In a world that is dominated by energy conglomerates, oil companies, and finance, the green agenda has had an uphill battle to get heard. The evidence of big business putting the block on the green agenda can be seen in the actions of government in the last few decades. The contradictions between actions such as that taken by Regan who “slashed the budget by over 50% for solar energy research that was spurring sustained innovation . . . [and] had the solar panels removed from the White House” (Patterson 2010) indicate that there is a conflict between the governments’ needs to woo economic behemoths to invest in the country and the environmental agenda. There are many organizations that are attempting to advance the innovation of eco-technologies, but overcoming the opposition by the oil and mining companies or

122

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

automotive manufacturers is made more difficult when politicians fail to support fledgling attempts for Doing Good in the area of environmental sustainability. The only solution to changing the way that we manage the planet is to change the management and challenge the dominance of the ideology of the capitalist market economy. The issue is wider than purely capitalist economies though. Socialist and communist states have been equally remiss in their treatment of the environment, showing little regard for the local ecology when pursuing the state agenda. The destruction of the Chinese countryside under Chairman Mao and the Nuclear and Chemical disasters in the Eastern Bloc demonstrate the same lack of stewardship regardless of the ideology of the time. Therefore, any attempt to move forward, to change our future is to adopt environmental stewardship as a tenet of an ideology, and Temperatism equates stewardship as a key platform upon which the proposed ideology stands. We need to be equally temperate in our activities, which have an environmental impact, as our approach to the pursuit of wealth creation. Doing Good includes doing good for the wider environment. But even with scientific evidence that climate change is melting ice caps, raising sea levels, and increasing the number of incidences and the intensity of drought, flood, and hurricane, the capitalist market system is being used as a vehicle to promote a cap and trade system for carbon emissions. Rather than solve the problems of diminishing resources and pollution in the system, carbon trading means that it is cheaper to share in the cost of producing the pollutants than in cleaning them up or developing processes to not produce them in the first place. The trade in carbon emissions negates the spur for organizations to invest in research and development for ways in which they can cut emission in their operations. The market for emissions trading once again demonstrates the ability of the capitalist market to consider short-term solutions to a problem, while failing to connect with the core issue and the delivery of long-term and sustainable outcomes. When the political establishment would rather pursue a capitalist market solution than a sustainable environmental solution to solve environmental problems, it only highlights how the pursuit of financial gain has distorted the reality of human endeavor. The fact that carbon is impacting the climate and the world’s natural resources seems to have boiled down to barter and number games. The issue, of course,



Stewards of Planet Earth

123

is that planet earth cannot afford a market system, which offers a cycle of boom and bust, because if the planet goes bust life on earth does too and there will be no chance for recovery. However, when environmental regulation is put into place, like the recent decisions by European countries to ban petrol cars by 2040, it has led to a response by manufacturers to invest in research and development for electric cars, which is already increasing the market for such vehicles. Therefore it is not that we can’t produce environmentally friendly products and services, it is that there is no incentive to do so. Many organizations have already recognized that humanity has failed in its role of Stewardship toward planet earth and that there will be a shortage of natural resources, which are currently relied upon within our society. Farsighted organizations have developed a plan that recognizes that they will soon be unable to continue to operate in the way that they do, as resources and materials that they rely on currently run out. There must also be attempts to make products and services and business and manufacturing processes more environmentally friendly by producing goods which are less demanding on material and energy resources. As organizations ­develop processes for innovation and the implementation of new technology to combat areas of natural resource decline, they are rewarded with greater profitability than those who are late adopters of green technology. For the environmental effects of industry and man to be brought under control and to diminish the negative external effects of organizational life, there has to be a collective effort. Organizations and society must be held ­accountable for clearing up the mess that it makes. The situation currently is that it is the societies in which capitalist corporations exist that suffer from environmental disaster, such as when the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico occurred. But cleaning up the environmental effects at a local level is not enough. We must go further and begin to work together as n ­ ations, organizations, and local communities to ensure that the work being carried out is having a global impact and that regardless of the source, the benefit of improved environmental care is felt where the effects are. Another consideration that must be explored is that of whom we are Doing Good for. Although today’s citizen, organization, and government is important in making decisions regarding what is or is not Doing Good, the world that we leave to our children and grandchildren must also be

124

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

on the negotiation table. There may be many things that we choose to do today, which have unintended consequences further down the line. In Victorian times, the building of sewers took the problem of human waste out of the cities, which had a positive impact on the health and well-­being of the individuals who lived in cities and removed the problems that u ­ rbanites had suffered from for years in regard to plague and waterborne diseases. However, to begin with, the sewers took much of the waste and pumped it away from the cities and into the rivers, which had a dramatic effect on the wildlife in rivers and streams around the UK. Even in 2012, some of the Victorian sewerage systems still exist and the UK has recently been fined by the EU for pumping raw sewerage into rivers against EU regulations. The point of this illustration is that Doing Good has to be seen in a holistic framework and solutions cannot be taken in isolation. Understanding the wider system within which the solution is operating can help those making the decision be aware of possible unintended consequences a decision made today may have on future generations. It is difficult for contemporary society to care too much for future generations and a population that have yet to live, especially when we have pressing concerns of our own, but if Temperatism is to remain a people-centered ideology, then the argument is that all people, past, present, and future, are equal and the welfare of future generations must be taken into consideration and safeguarded as much as the contemporary population’s current needs and wants. It is important to note that although not explicitly mentioned so far, animal rights do form part of our stewardship of planet earth. Working in harmony with, rather than against nature goes hand in hand with Doing Good from an animal rights perspective. Good animal husbandry is part of that mix for environmental stewardship. As we move away from a profitcentric model of farming and agriculture to one that is Doing Good, the production of food and the protection of local plant and animal life are necessarily part of the wider system. Temperatism promotes the building of a culture of husbandry that supports better animal welfare as practiced by farmers certified by the soil association and organic certification bodies. In practice it is difficult to see all the problems and unintended consequences of our actions. That is, after all, why they are unintended, but taking time to consider whether Doing Good will succeed in an outcome



Stewards of Planet Earth

125

of good not just today, but 10 years, 50 years, or even 100 years from now is important in regard to being accountable for our actions. One of the biggest plagues capitalism inflicted on our planet was short-term thinking, robbing the natural world of its resources without a thought regarding tomorrow. Accountability doesn’t matter to a CEO who is rewarded for this quarter’s results and won’t be in post when the consequences of nefarious actions become someone else’s headache. Organizations must consider their operations in a longer timeframe, creating a plan for 50 years hence might seem ridiculous, but if organizations are not thinking ahead, then they are not Doing Good. It will be difficult to hold government, society, and organizations to account for something that may or may not happen 100 years from now, but if we do not try to consider our future and the future generations in our decision making now then we will continue to be a poor steward of planet earth. There is perhaps a strong onus on government and organizations to consider their role in sponsoring and supporting research which focuses on issues such as natural resource renewal, environmental stewardship, and reducing consumption of natural resources, new ideas regarding energy generation and of course the reduction in the rate of climate change. Capitalist short-termism has failed to produce the necessary momentum to pull together the best of human innovation, inventiveness, and creativity in addressing the environmental concerns that we face. But fighting over who is to blame will waste time, energy, and resource, which should be spent on developing a new pathway. In the UK, consumers want and are willing to pay for food produced locally and which protects the local environment. Gigantic supermarkets are, like many oligarchic industries, a result of the capitalist pursuit of profit. By changing the agenda to “Doing Good” the practice of squeezing supplier margins which result in lower quality production methods will be put under the microscope and enabling farmers to protect their livelihood Protecting agriculture, reducing the impact of large enterprises to dictate to the local community and encouraging local food sourcing would all benefit from a Doing Good agenda and help to improve the welfare of animals, as well as establish protection of the wider environment in which food production takes place.

126

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

We cannot return our planet to some form of eighteenth-century, preindustrialized idyll. Those days are gone and we gain nothing from returning humanity to a time where we do not benefit from the prosperity that technology has given us. However, although planet earth cannot be treated as a museum, we must not allow it to become a mausoleum either. Preserving natural treasures for continual use in the future is good stewardship of resources, which even the most utilitarian economist can appreciate. Nature is a resource to be used for the good of mankind, but if ever the term “Temperance” was to be applied in regard to a resources use, then Nature and the environment that supports our very life on this planet is one of the best teachers of the need for Doing Good than any other endeavor man places his hands to.

CHAPTER 10

What Will Be Our Legacy? Bad things can happen quickly, but good things aren’t built in a day, and as they unfold they will be out of sync with the news cycle. The peace researcher John Galtung pointed out that, if a newspaper came out once every 50 years, it would not report half a century of celebrity gossip and political scandals. It would report momentous global changs such as the increase in life expectancy. —Pinker (2018)

What is so exciting is that in a digitalized world we have at our disposal the tools with which to create a democratic movement for change. ­Organizations and individuals can communicate with other people in an instant and the ideas expressed in this book can be used for debate in blogs and case studies of organizations around the world and can add to those ideas that have already been explored and examined by others. The digital age has empowered the individual to be the catalyst for a global social movement and drive forward ideas that make real change happen. During the Industrial Revolution the elite had access to the means of communication and information; they could control the ebb and flow of social exchange for their own means. Today, it is the people who have at their fingertips the tools to manage the pace of change and be effective in driving an agenda based on Doing Good. Those who support Capitalism are trying to engage those disgruntled with the rising levels of inequality by creating division and blaming it on immigrants, individual failure, or the unnamed elites, of which they are not a part. The claim is that Capitalism will adapt to survive as it has again

128

TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

and again. But, this time things are different. The inequality is bigger and the solution involves greater levels of inequality to be borne by those who are least able to survive. Opioid epidemics, rising levels of poverty, and increasing levels of those who are educated professionals just about managing mean that it may be that the solution lies not in the willingness of society to bear the inequality but rather in our inability to bear it any longer. We can pull on the history of Kings and Queens, Nations, Cities, Institutions, Languages, Science, Knowledge, and Technology available to us or look at the truly astounding accomplishment of human energy, skills, capacity, knowledge, and values. There is no limit to our ability to improve society and our own lives. Both external and internal accomplishment is recorded and available for us to examine and marvel at how amazing the human race is, and if you are reading this then you too have within you the same capacity to be able to accomplish something truly world changing. The time for change is right, not just because of the economic situation we currently face, but because our society is ready for change; we want different things to that which capitalism offers us. For those of us that are no longer young and may have had our idealism knocked out of us, we can believe that we are too busy to be able to contribute to a social movement, just as those who live under dictatorship can believe that it is easier just to survive than fight. Whether it is apathy or just that we have given up, we can be heartened by the fact that our thoughts about the way the world is today are not unique. It is unfair, injustice abounds but there is no use waiting for a superhero to fly in and save the day. You are the hero everyone is waiting for. What is truly fantastic is that once humanity achieves something that was once thought impossible we continue to progress. In the months following Roger ­Bannister breaking the 1-minute mile, around seventeen people achieved the same feat. There is no limit to our ability to overcome the impossible. At the center of this movement is the organization, that is, organizations with a social conscience, one that truly cares for people, society, and the planet. Organizations aren’t just a mainstay of the economy, they are a central part of our society and our culture. If organizations galvanize to adopt a Doing Good agenda then the forces of Doing Good will be marshaled at a societal level. With the support of our employers we will find ourselves in a situation where society pursues the best of what we are,



What Will Be Our Legacy?

129

we are liberated to do good things and act ethically and morally. We will begin to trust each other, the state, and the institutions and organizations that we interact with, because we believe that rather than everyone securing their slice of the pie they are Doing Good with vigor. A community-based approach to business, focused on shared responsibility and delivering an agenda of Doing Good, will develop a broader sense of belonging, of being part of something bigger delivering huge benefits in regard to personal and societal well-being and happiness. Community ties will be healthier, better nourished, and individuals more able and willing to contribute to the social paradigm. Being part of something bigger will make everyone act bigger, helping us all to be better, as well as feel better. Organizations that follow an agenda of Doing Good reject the pursuit of profit as the deciding factor on their decision making. They begin to ask why do we exist and what is the purpose behind the organization’s activity, and the organization operates through a lens of asking itself what can we contribute to the wider society, leading to an adoption of Doing Good through Business with a Social Conscience.

References Aras, G., and D. Crowther. 2009. “Making Sustainable Development Sustainable.” Management Decision 47, no. 6, pp. 975–88. Bammens, Y. P. M. 2016. “Employee’s Innovative Behavior in Social Context: A Closer Examination of the Role of Organizational Care.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 33, no. 3, pp. 244–59. Banerjee, A. V., and E. Duflo. 2012. Poor Economics Barefoot Hedge-fun Managers, DIY Doctors and the Surprising Truth about Life on Less than $1 a Day. London, UK: Penguin Books. Bartkoski, N. N., and A. M. Shahzad. 2017. “The Effect of Entrepreneurial ­Orientation on Strategic Corporate Social Performance.” Social Business 7, no. 2, pp. 97–125. Blodget, H. 2012. And the Scrooge Award Goes to . . . Corporate America. http:// www.businessinsider.com/companies-need-to-share-more-profits-with-­ employees-2012-12?IR=T, (accessed June 7, 2018). Blodgett, M. S., R. Hoitash, and A. Markelevich. 2014. “Sustaining the Financial Value of Global CSR: Reconciling Corporate and Stakeholder Interests in Less Regulated Environments.” Business and Society Review 119, no. 1, pp. 95–24. Bulman, M. 2018. Food Ban Use in UK Reaches Highest Rate on Record as Benefits Fail to Cover Basic Costs. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ home-news/food-bank-uk-benefits-trussell-trust-cost-of-living-highestrate-a8317001.html, (accessed July 9, 2018). Butler, P. 2017. One in Every 200 People in UK Are Homeless, According to Shelter. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/08/one-in-every-200-­ people-in-uk-are-homeless-according-to-shelter, (accessed July 9, 2018). Camilleri, M. A. 2016. “Reconceiving Corporate Social Responsibility for ­Business and Education Outcomes.” Cogent Business and Management 3, no. 1, pp. 1–14. Carroll, A. B. 1991. “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders.” Business Horizons 34, no. 4, pp. 39–48. Chaubey, P. K. 2016. “For Profit Corporate With Social Conscience: Indian ­Context.” Journal of Institute of Public Enterprise 39, no. 3 and 4, pp. 117–36. Chernev, A., and S. Blair. April, 2015. “Doing Well by Doing Good: The ­Benevolent Halo of Corporate Responsibility.” Journal of Consumer Research 41, pp. 1412–25.

132 REFERENCES

CIPD. February, 2012. A Collection of Thought Pieces—Responsible and Sustainable Business: HR Leading the Way. London, UK: CIPD. Foster, C. 2018. Temperatism, Volume 1: A New Way to Thinking about Business and Doing Good. New York, NY: Business Expert Press. Fox, K. 2018. “Alex Gibney: ‘Every business Trump touched withered and died.’” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/feb/04/alex-gibneydirty-money-interview-donald-trump, (accessed February 4, 2018). Frederick, W. C. 1960. “Growing Concern over Business Responsibility.” California Management Review 2, pp. 54–61. Freeman, R. E. 2002. “Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation.” In Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach (7th ed.), eds. T. Donaldson and P. H. Werhane. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pretice Hall. Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fry, R. 2017. “Agents of World Benefit: Business—An Appreciative Inquiry into Business as an Agent of World Benefit.” AI Practitioner 19, no. 2, pp. 9–16. Garcia, N., and B. H. Kleiner. 2016. “There’s Profit in Wellness and Social ­Responsibility.” Industrial Management, pp. 24–27. George, H. 2017. Progress and Poverty. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Ghazzawi, I. A., and M. E. Palladini. 2014. “The Shift from Economic to Social Responsibility: The Tale of Two Arguments.” Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 17, no. 1, pp. 15–36. Goldin, I. 2018. Five Reasons Why Universal Basic Income Is a Bad Idea. https:// www.ft.com/content/100137b4-0cdf-11e8-bacb-2958fde95e5e, (accessed July 9, 2018). Groth, A. 2015. “Entrepreneurs Don’t Have a Special Gene for Risk – They Come from Families with Money.” Quartz https://qz.com/455109/­entrepreneursdont-have-a-special-gene-for-risk-they-come-from-families-with-money, ­(accessed June 7, 2018). Hodinkova, M., and Z. Sadovsky. 2016. “The Benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility Introduction in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A ­ Systematic Review of Literature.” Business: Theory and Practice 17, no. 4, pp. 345–52. https://doi.org/10.3846/burp.17.11130 James, M. 2017. Record Number of Employers Named and Shamed for Underpaying. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/record-number-of-employers-namedand-shamed-for-underpaying, (accessed July 5, 2018). Jan De Graaf, F. 2016. “CSR as Value Attunement within Governance Processes: Stakeholder Dialogue, Corporate Principles and Regulation.” Business and Society Review 121, no. 3, pp. 365–90.

REFERENCES 133

Jeffery, R. 2018. “Execs under Fire over Pay.” People Management Magazine July/ August, p. 6. Jensen, M. C. 2001. “Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function.” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 14, pp. 8–21. Keegan, M. 2018. Benefit or burden? The Cities Trying Out Universal Basic Income. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jun/27/benefit-or-burden-thecities-trying-out-universal-basic-income, (accessed July 9, 2018). Kinkade, L. 2018. America’s Poor Becoming More Destitute under Trump, UN Report Says. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/22/us/america-poverty-unreport/index.html, (accessed July 9, 2018). Kollen, T. 2016. “Acting Out of Compassion, Egoism, and Malice: A Schopernhaurian View on the Moral Worth of CSR and Diversity Management Practices.” Journal of Business Ethics 138, no. 215, pp. 215–29. Levine, R., and Y. Rubinstein. 2013. Smart and Illicit: Who Becomes and Entrepreneur and Do They Earn More. National Bureau of Economic ­ ­Research Working Paper Series 19276. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19276 .pdf?new_window=1, (accessed June 7, 2018). Lewis, G., S. Palacios, and M. A. Valenzuela. 2016. “An Integration Framework of Organizational Moral Development, Legitimacy and Corporate Responsibility: A Longitudinal, Intersectoral Analysis of Citizenship Reports. Business and Society Review.” Journal of the Centre for Business Ethics Bentley University 121, no. 4, pp. 593–623. Luhman, J. T., and A. L. Cunliffe. 2013. Key Concepts in Organization Theory. London, UK: Sage. Maslow, A. H. 1943. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50, no. 4, p. 370. Mayer, R., 2007. “What’s wrong with exploitation?”.Journal of Applied Philosophy 24, no. 2, pp.137–150. Mendel, S. C., and J. L. Brudney. 2014. “Doing Good, Public Good, and Public Value: Why Differences Matter.” Non-Profit Management and Leadership 25, no. 1, pp. 23–40. Meyer, M. 2015. “Positive Business: Doing Good and Doing Well.” Business Ethics: A European Review 25, no. S2, pp. S175–97. Nair, S. 2016. “Theories and Practices of Corporate Governance.” International Journal of Research in Commerce, IT and Management 6, no. 11, pp. 50–52. Nonet, G., K. Kassel, and L. Meiji. 2016. “Understanding Responsible Management: Emerging Themes and Variations from European Business School Programs.” Journal of Business Ethics 139, 717–36. Osterman, P. January, 2018. “In Search of the High Road: Meaning and ­Evidence.” ILR Review 71, no. 1, pp. 3–34.

134 REFERENCES

Partington, R. 2018. Number of Zero-hours Contracts in UK Rose by 100,000 in 2017—ONS. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/23/number-ofzero-hours-contracts-in-uk-rose-by-100000-in-2017-ons, (accessed July 5, 2018). Patterson, R. 2010. “A Great Dilemma Generates Another Great Transformation: Incompatibility of Capitalism and Sustainable Environments.” Perspectives of Global Development and Technology 9, pp. 74–83. Pinker, S., 2018. Enlightenment now: the case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Penguin. Reiter, S. L. 2016. “Corporate Profit, Social Welfare, and the Logic of Capitalism. Business and Society Review.” Journal of the Centre for Business Ethics, Bentley University 121, no. 3, pp. 331–63. Rentkova, V. 2015. “Moral Principles of Providing Social Services.” Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie/Politechnika Śląska 84, pp. 187–97. Rifkin, J. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons and The Eclipse of Capitalism. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave McMillan. Rosenburg, T. 2011. Join the Club How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World. London, UK: Icon Books Ltd. Rosling, H., A.R. Rönnlund, and O. Rosling. 2018. Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong about the World–and why Things are Better Than You Think. New York, NY: Flatiron Books. Schopenhauer, A. 1841. On the Basis of Morality (E.F. J. Payne, Trans). ­Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. Seu, B. 2018. Is Caring in Crisis? London UK: BBK Teaching and Research, pp. 30–31. Smith, J. R., and S. A. Haslam. 2012. Social Psychology–Revisiting the Classic Studies. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd. Stennett, C. April, 2017. “The Trees are Talking.” Readers Digest April 2017, pp. 56–63. Suchman, M. C. 1995. “Managing Legitmacy: Strategic and Institutional ­Approaches.” Academy of Management Review 20, pp. 571–610. Tebini, H., B. M’Zali, P. Lang, and B. Perez-Gladish. 2016. “The Economic Impact of Environmentally Responsible Practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.” Wiley Online Library 23, pp. 333–44. doi:10.1002/CSR.1383. Thornton, M. A., and D. E. Rupp. 2016. “The Joint Effects of Justice Climate, Group Moral Identity, and Corporate Social Responsibility on the Prosocial and Deviant Behaviors of Groups.” Journal of Business Ethics 137, pp. 677–97.

REFERENCES 135

Vranceanu, R. January, 2014. “Corporate Profit, Entrepreneurship Theory and Business Ethics.” Business Ethics: A European Review 23, no. 1. pp. 50–68. Wang, Y., G. Cheney and J. Roper. 2016. “Virtue Ethics and the Practice–­ Institution Schema: An Ethical Case of Excellent Business Practices.” Journal of Business Ethics 138, no. 1, pp. 67–77. Werner, A., and M. Lim. 2016. “The Ethics of the Living Wage: A Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Business Ethics 137, pp. 433–47. doi:10.1007/ s10551-015-2562-z Wilkinson, R., and K. Picket. 2010. The Spirit Level Why Equality is better for Everyone. London, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.

About the Author Carrie Foster specializes in the facilitation of coaching, people management, and organization development interventions that deliver added value and a measurable ROI to bottom-line performance. As a proven commercial organization development practitioner, executive coach, practicing academic, and published author with a successful commercial career covering FMCG, industrial, manufacturing, and professional services, she has a track record of providing OD and coaching programs across the United Kingdom, Europe, Russia, and the Middle East that have met both the individual and business needs.

Index Accountability, 121–126 Basic Good of Personality, 64 Basic Good of Security, 70 Capitalism, 20, 22, 31, 34, 39, 48– 49, 101, 116, 119, 127–128 Changing the world, 101, 103–105 Charity. See Philanthropy Cognitive legitimacy, 102 Community-based approach, 15, 129 Corporate social responsibility (CSR), 16, 60–61, 103, 112 Corporate terrorism, 107 Darwin’s theory of evolution, 12 Doing Good advocating, 11 begins with employees, 78 business of, 24–27 business of growth, 20–24 community-based approach, 15, 129 as driving force for human existence, 15–20 hierarchy of responsibilities, 22–23 measuring change towards, mechanisms for, 101 as opportunity to begin change, 106–107 organizations, role of, 24 outcomes of, 85–86 overview of, 11–12 social conscience approach to business, 12–15 sustainable development, achieving, 14 Temperatism, importance of, 16–20 through business, 11–27 through business with social conscience, 129

Economic inequality, addressing, 92 Employee skills, investing in, 82–85 Entry-level jobs, 89–90 Environmentalism, 118 Equality, 68–71 Ethics and values Doing Good, purpose of having, 59 equality, 68–71 humanizing business, 71–73 importance of, 57–73 overview of, 57–59 philosophical debates on, 59–68 Temperatism, ideology of, 57–59 Fast Capitalism, 32 Financial capitalism, 61 Gallup polls, 97 General Data Protection Regulation (2018), 25 Glassdoor, 76 Green agenda, 119 “Green business” initiatives, 121 House of Commons, 95 Human capital, 82–83 Human ingenuity, 113 Human potential, releasing, 96–98 Human Race, 14 Human resource (HR) profession, 76–77 Human trafficking, 80 Individualism, 103 Inequality challenges facing today, 30–31 within education system, 42–43 equality, pursuing, 32 inevitability of, 32 momentum for change, building, 37–39

140 INDEX

Inequality (Continued ) overview of, 29–30 perpetuating, role in, 30–37 poverty, 45 tackling is everyone’s responsibility, 39–45 “taking advantage,” problem of, 44 Temperatism, focus on, 33–34 In-work poverty, rise of, 92 Iron Law of Responsibility, 25 Legitimacy capitalist market system, changing, 100 of capitalist system, 101–103 changing the world, 103–105 definition of, 101 Doing Good, measuring change toward, 101 power is in our hands, 106–107 power to change, 105–106 rationality of not seeking change, 107–108 societal change, 109–110 #MarchForLife, 3 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, 96 #MeToo movement (2018), 109 Moral bankruptcy, 11 Moral legitimacy, 102 National culture, 79–80 Ownership, 115–116, 121–126 Philanthropy, 12 Planet earth ability to fix problems, 113–115 environment and ecology of, 111 growth vs. sustainability, 116–121 husbandry, culture of, 124 overview of, 111–113 ownership and accountability, 121–126 ownership of natural assets, 115–116 stewards of, 111–126 Poverty, 45

Pragmatic legitimacy, 102 Rationality, of not seeking change, 107–108 Reputation capitalist market system, changing, 100 changing the world, 103–105 Doing Good, measuring change toward, 101 power is in our hands, 106–107 power to change, 105–106 rationality of not seeking change, 107–108 societal change, 109–110 Response-Able concept, 34 Self-actualization, 19–20, 96 Self-employed contracts, 88 Selfishness, 103 Social capital, 105 Social conscience approach to business, 12–15 begins with employees, 75–86 changing workplace, 80–82 Doing Good, outcomes of, 85–86 employee skills, investing in, 82–85 human resource (HR) profession, 76–77 national culture, 79–80 people matter, 77–80 Zero Harm approach, 86 Social loafing, 43 Social networks, 105 Societal change, 109–110 Sustainability, 116–121 Systems thinking breaking the system, 55–56 choosing not to change, 54–55 inequality in society, 47–48 overview of, 47–52 profit maximization, 54 social advantage, 51 win, lose, or draw, 52–54 Temperance, 126 Temperatism biggest critics of, 108

INDEX 141

definition of, 1 desire of, 5–6 Doing Good in society, 1–2 equality in, 32 Golden Age of humanity, 26 as ideology, basis of, 3 introduction to, 1–9 key tenet of, 6 organizational and market model, 2 at organizational level, 109–110 positive outcomes from organizational resources, 7–8 “Self ” in, 103–104 Temperatist-minded organizations, 110

economic inequality, addressing, 92 entry-level jobs, 89–90 human potential, releasing, 96–98 in-work poverty, rise of, 92 lifting people out of poverty, 91 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, 96 need for helping hand, 91–93 overview of, 87–90 performance literature, 97 safety net, 93–95 self-employed contracts, 88 working tax credits, 92–93 Whistleblowers, 8 Working tax credits, 92–93

Universal basic income addressing problems, 92

Zero Harm approach, 86 Zero unemployment, 42

OTHER TITLES IN THE HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR COLLECTION • Virtual Vic: A Management Fable by Laurence M. Rose • Our Glassrooms: Perceptiveness and Its Implications for Transformational Leadership by Dhruva Trivedy • The New World of Human Resources and Employment: How Artificial Intelligence and Process Redesign is Driving Dramatic Change by Tony Miller • From Behind the Desk to the Front of the Stage: How to Enhance Your Presentation Skills by David Worsfold • No Dumbing Down: A No-Nonsense Guide for CEOs on Organization Growth by Karen D. Walker • Redefining Competency Based Education: Competence for Life by Nina Morel and Bruce Griffiths • Skilling India: Challenges and Opportunities by S. Nayana Tara and Sanath Kumar • Creating a Successful Consulting Practice by Gary W. Randazzo • How Successful Engineers Become Great Business Leaders by Paul Rulkens • Leading the High-Performing Company: A Transformational Guide to Growing Your Business and Outperforming Your Competition by Heidi Pozzo • The Concise Coaching Handbook: How to Coach Yourself and Others to Get Business Results by Elizabeth Dickinson • Lead Self First Before Leading Others: A Life Planning Resource by Stephen K. Hacker • The How of Leadership: Inspire People to Achieve Extraordinary Results by Maxwell Ubah

Announcing the Business Expert Press Digital Library Concise e-books business students need for classroom and research This book can also be purchased in an e-book collection by your library as • • • • •

a one-time purchase, that is owned forever, allows for simultaneous readers, has no restrictions on printing, and can be downloaded as PDFs from within the library community.

Our digital library collections are a great solution to beat the rising cost of textbooks. E-books can be loaded into their course management systems or onto students’ e-book readers. The Business Expert Press digital libraries are very affordable, with no obligation to buy in future years. For more information, please visit www.businessexpertpress.com/librarians. To set up a trial in the United States, please email [email protected].

EBOOKS FOR BUSINESS STUDENTS

Curriculum-oriented, borndigital books for advanced business students, written by academic thought leaders who translate realworld business experience into course readings and reference materials for students expecting to tackle management and leadership challenges during their professional careers.

• Unlimited simultaneous usage • Unrestricted downloading and printing • Perpetual access for a one-time fee • No platform or maintenance fees • Free MARC records • No license to execute The Digital Libraries are a comprehensive, cost-effective way to deliver practical treatments of important business issues to every student and faculty member.

For further information, a free trial, or to order, contact:  [email protected] www.businessexpertpress.com/librarians

Doing Good Through Business With a Social Conscience

Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior Collection

Carrie Foster Temperatism is more than a bleeding heart version of the capitalist ideal. Its purpose is to tackle key injustices and social inequality that are symptoms of the capitalist market system. By focusing on an agenda of doing good, temperatism seeks to reduce the level of elitism and social exclusion, that capitalism claims are inevitable, by sharing access to resources and ensuring that all individuals have the opportunity to exercise their talent potential. With the world economy in flux and globalism under pressure from populist politicians finding a new way to think about business and doing good is significant at this point in history. The hurt and pain that inequality inflicts on individuals and groups in society through exclusion and neglect is in conflict with our natural sense of affinity, collaboration and our intrinsic sense of fair play and justice. The dysfunction that we are currently experiencing in our society is as a direct result of the inequality within our society. Temperatism is based on the idea that humanity has the potential to co-operate, collaborate, assist and contribute to the greater good. The questions discussed in Volume 2 explore how replacing the profit motive with a doing good motive makes it possible to tackle some of society’s biggest challenges including reducing poverty, improving access to health and education, defending human rights, and protecting the environment. Organizations with a social conscience will leave a legacy of which they can be rightly proud, shifting business from being the center of society’s problems to being its savior. Carrie Foster specializes in the facilitation of coaching, people management, and organization development interventions that deliver added value and a measurable ROI to bottom-line performance. As a proven commercial organization development practitioner, executive coach, practicing academic, and published author with a successful commercial career covering FMCG, industrial, manufacturing, and professional services, she has a track record of providing OD and coaching programs across the United Kingdom, Europe, Russia, and the Middle East that have met both the individual and business needs.

Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior Collection

Temperatism, Volume II TEMPERATISM, VOLUME II

POLICIES BUILT BY LIBRARIANS

Temperatism, Volume II

FOSTER

THE BUSINESS EXPERT PRESS DIGITAL LIBRARIES

Doing Good Through Business With a Social Conscience

Carrie Foster