From all quarters, there is a desire to redefine the relationship between business and society, the world and nature, to connect particular and general interests, and to bring together economic and financial players in the pursuit of fundamental “common good” objectives.
Responsibility is a function of the power one exercises. Corporations concentrate a lot of power, over people and over things. The exercise of these powers is not illegitimate; one could even say it is necessary. Corporations need to exercise them to the extent that they enable the production of goods and services useful to the human condition, to regions, communities and their prosperity. The debate centres on how powers are exercised, the obligations they entail, the concern that must guide those who exercise them. This not a novel debate, but it is now focusing on specific aspects: the nature and size of certain companies, the techniques they use, their social and environmental impact, the widening of inequalities; all of these issues pose challenges relating to the sustainability of the economy, the relationship between companies and political institutions and their legitimate right to prosper.
A company’s responsibility is first and foremost towards its shareholders. This is in their best interest, because of the risks that a badly run business puts them at, but also because they want their investments to be guided by a long term vision, without which financial performance is meaningless and unsustainable. How can one encourage the development of long-term shareholders? How can one reconcile financial and non-financial perspectives? Can “Green Finance” inspire all financial activity?
While these questions apply to companies and investors, the State retains a role in which today it alone has legitimacy. There is a tendency to sideline the State in its function as a regulator of the economy, to want to shift everything on the company, seen as the institution that should meet all social and environmental needs. But economic activity is carried out in specific territories, which have their own constraints and traditions. It is up to States to define the necessary compromises according to the nature of territories and the part they play in history, culture and the global order. States are today the only entities with the legitimacy to organise and crystallise the arbitrations of a society, at a given moment, in a territory, on the collective choices of priority common objectives. The theme of corporate social responsibility should be an opportunity to re-examine the relationship between the State and economic and financial players.
Ultimately, the issue of corporate social responsibility must be considered in its philosophical and political dimension. The theme has become highly politicised. This is a universe in which the many stakeholders assert their interests in moral, universal and abstract categories. Thanks to the positions they take, the economy is placed under the impatient moral jurisdiction of public opinion. That said, in a field that links tradition and innovation, responsibilities, which in the present context involve leading transformation, could be assessed on the basis of other criteria, such as those that have long characterised righteous action. The question of values is the last area to be explored.
Yves Perrier, Chairman of the Comité Médicis
François Ewald, Delegate-General of the Comité Médicis
