Edmond Warner: Please, don't let me be misunderstood
Companies can still live with Labour but the compact is undermined if there is suspicion that influence can be bought surreptiously.
When I first agreed to write this column, I was warned to expect the occasional letter written in green ink. One such arrived a few months back and was as batty as the warning predicted. I've treasured it as my only example of its genre. Last week's article, however, prompted a fatter than usual email postbag, including a number of missives that - in an earlier era - might also have been penned in green.
Last week's subject was the Budget and, specifically, the business community's likely long-term reaction to it once the dust has settled. My contention was that business would accept its new "payroll tax" so long as the money ploughed into the NHS bore fruit and didn't upset the political apple cart. I also made the rather unoriginal observation that successful implementation of this spending programme, within a short time frame, required hefty slices of skill and good fortune.
In return I have received a series of hysterical (in both senses of the word) communications railing against the financial and business communities. My favourite was from a Cambridge undergraduate (as he chose to identify himself) who began by asking me who I thought I was, proceeded to suggest a reading list to correct my distorted view of the world and ended by apologising for his intemperate language.
There is clearly a danger in reading too much into the views of a small minority of readers who take the trouble to vent their spleen when they read something that they disagree with. Or who are so keen to find an opportunity to vent their spleen that they ascribe opinions to an author that are not supported by his or her text. But my inbox last Monday says much to me about the difficulties business faces in communicating with a wide audience. One could trot out a string of cliched observations and opinions at this point, but they would serve only to highlight the communication problem, not solve it. What is clear to me, however, is that - contrary to the views of many - business does not have a uniform set of interests, which makes it impossible for it to talk with one voice or to have a single mouthpiece.
As for any interest group, businessmen and women are prone to feel misunderstood when the media aren't swinging their way. Do they help their cause in the way they handle their public relations? Depends on the individuals and their companies concerned. Some do, some don't. Do the successful ones manage thereby to improve the acceptance of their actions by the populace at large? Depends on what those actions are, and whether the audience is prepared to give them a fair hearing or not.
Within hours of the Budget, the British Chambers of Commerce issued a press release in the name of its director general, David Lennan, which began: "After several steps forward this is a budget that has reached a plateau in driving business competitiveness and prospects forward. Employers do not draw on the national health service and should not be asked to pay for its improvements."
The very next day Mr Lennan was summarily dismissed. It is not clear whether the forthright views expressed in his name the day before were a contributory factor. Either way, the episode has done little to further the cause of lobby groups such as the BCC. Indeed, for all their good work, it could be argued that individual businesses risk sullying their own reputations by attaching themselves to organisations that feel able to express contentious views on political matters on their behalf.
Businesses have obligations to their shareholders, many of whom will expect their management representatives to do all they can to resist incursions into the profits that are generated for their benefit. Other shareholders, on the other hand, will place great store by the success with which companies fulfil perceived wider social obligations.
Impression
Management can help steer the desires of shareholders. At the extreme, they can set out a highly socially responsible agenda that might repel the most profit-conscious investors. In practice, most companies attempt to create the impression that they steer a middle road, pursuing standards which would allow inclusion in "socially responsible" portfolios and new indices such as FTSE 4 Good, but not compromising short-term profit any further.
Such an approach is insufficient to fend off rabid anti-capitalists, but could be enough to ensure business coexists with a government pursuing an inclusive agenda.
Provided of course that business keeps its head down and that the government does not get caught in the series of lobbying scandals that have so afflicted the present administration. Suspicion that influence can be bought surreptitiously undermines any implicit compact between all parties with an interest in the social economy.
Now, let the green ink flow
Edmond Warner is chief executive of Old Mutual Financial Services
When I first agreed to write this column, I was warned to expect the occasional letter written in green ink. One such arrived a few months back and was as batty as the warning predicted. I've treasured it as my only example of its genre. Last week's article, however, prompted a fatter than usual email postbag, including a number of missives that - in an earlier era - might also have been penned in green.
Last week's subject was the Budget and, specifically, the business community's likely long-term reaction to it once the dust has settled. My contention was that business would accept its new "payroll tax" so long as the money ploughed into the NHS bore fruit and didn't upset the political apple cart. I also made the rather unoriginal observation that successful implementation of this spending programme, within a short time frame, required hefty slices of skill and good fortune.
In return I have received a series of hysterical (in both senses of the word) communications railing against the financial and business communities. My favourite was from a Cambridge undergraduate (as he chose to identify himself) who began by asking me who I thought I was, proceeded to suggest a reading list to correct my distorted view of the world and ended by apologising for his intemperate language.
There is clearly a danger in reading too much into the views of a small minority of readers who take the trouble to vent their spleen when they read something that they disagree with. Or who are so keen to find an opportunity to vent their spleen that they ascribe opinions to an author that are not supported by his or her text. But my inbox last Monday says much to me about the difficulties business faces in communicating with a wide audience. One could trot out a string of cliched observations and opinions at this point, but they would serve only to highlight the communication problem, not solve it. What is clear to me, however, is that - contrary to the views of many - business does not have a uniform set of interests, which makes it impossible for it to talk with one voice or to have a single mouthpiece.
As for any interest group, businessmen and women are prone to feel misunderstood when the media aren't swinging their way. Do they help their cause in the way they handle their public relations? Depends on the individuals and their companies concerned. Some do, some don't. Do the successful ones manage thereby to improve the acceptance of their actions by the populace at large? Depends on what those actions are, and whether the audience is prepared to give them a fair hearing or not.
Within hours of the Budget, the British Chambers of Commerce issued a press release in the name of its director general, David Lennan, which began: "After several steps forward this is a budget that has reached a plateau in driving business competitiveness and prospects forward. Employers do not draw on the national health service and should not be asked to pay for its improvements."
The very next day Mr Lennan was summarily dismissed. It is not clear whether the forthright views expressed in his name the day before were a contributory factor. Either way, the episode has done little to further the cause of lobby groups such as the BCC. Indeed, for all their good work, it could be argued that individual businesses risk sullying their own reputations by attaching themselves to organisations that feel able to express contentious views on political matters on their behalf.
Businesses have obligations to their shareholders, many of whom will expect their management representatives to do all they can to resist incursions into the profits that are generated for their benefit. Other shareholders, on the other hand, will place great store by the success with which companies fulfil perceived wider social obligations.
Impression
Management can help steer the desires of shareholders. At the extreme, they can set out a highly socially responsible agenda that might repel the most profit-conscious investors. In practice, most companies attempt to create the impression that they steer a middle road, pursuing standards which would allow inclusion in "socially responsible" portfolios and new indices such as FTSE 4 Good, but not compromising short-term profit any further.
Such an approach is insufficient to fend off rabid anti-capitalists, but could be enough to ensure business coexists with a government pursuing an inclusive agenda.
Provided of course that business keeps its head down and that the government does not get caught in the series of lobbying scandals that have so afflicted the present administration. Suspicion that influence can be bought surreptitiously undermines any implicit compact between all parties with an interest in the social economy.
Now, let the green ink flow
Edmond Warner is chief executive of Old Mutual Financial Services
Use the feedback form below to submit your comments.
Use the form below to email this article to your friends.
