The ethics of business

‘The development on my doorstep’ is an encapsulation of modern contradictions and dilemmas. The desire – greed – of landowner, developers, and architect for profits. The opposition of the community – which could, unfairly, be described as NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) - to a scheme that is unsuitable for the designated site.

On the one hand there is the stated need for more housing, especially in the South East of England, and especially on brown-field sites. This is stated in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing (1) (click on 'carry on reading' for footnotes.)

On the other hand is a desire to improve the quality of buildings, especially in deprived and urban areas, both aesthetically and environmentally (2)

I asked our developers if they had considered any use other than retail 'buy buy consume consume' - eg, had they consulted with the Health Service. They hadn’t. They smugly announced that they will be funding a bus lane and enforcement camera outside the development. – it sounds good, but is of little benefit in that particular location. To talk as if they are doing it out of charity is disingenuous. They are doing so because they are obliged to, under Section 106 of Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

There can be more to business merely than maximising profit and exploiting ‘the people’. Corporate responsibility has been set up to promote an alternative approach to business. (3)

Indeed, it is an issue which has been previously alluded to on this site. Note Jon’s reply. Jon responded this way because he believes in acting ethically. His business acts ethically not because they have seen the benefit to the bottom line of so doing, but as a natural extension of a personal belief.

Corporate responsibility is, in theory, a laudable concept. Unfortunately, it is also one that is incredibly difficult to persuade onto a company. Many businesses have noticed that acting with corporate social responsibility acts as good public relations. All too often, it translates only into throwing a sum of money (usually tax deductible) at a good cause, or freeing staff time to help out with the ‘under-privileged’ (also a useful way for staff to develop new skills). Business in the Community promotes such activities. And, indeed, their principles go much deeper in attempting to explain why it is good business practice to consider the needs of the community in their normal business practice. Not surprisingly, our local developers are not members.

This post on Tom’s site has commenters leaving coded messages that they suggest that The Body Shop’s ethical policy is not quite what it seems.

In a parallel universe, there would be a development company with a true commitment to social responsibility involved in my local development. Not because it would improve their chances of getting their planning permission, nor just to improve their bottom line. But because it was, instinctively, the right thing to do.

The process would have started by consulting with the local community, using an open meeting, but also meeting with official channels – for example, the local councillors, and the local New Deal for Communities Board. Before any plans were even drafted, there would be constructive discussion about potential uses for the site. My personal vision would be for a modern, comprehensive Primary Healthcare Centre, perhaps combined with affordable exercise space. There could still be mixed use of the site – low rise residential properties, set around courtyards, perhaps.

A further step would be to understand what local concerns are. It is arrogant to try and persuade us, who know the area, and have read reports from Transport for London, that this is not an area of extreme parking stress, where walks-to-school for at least four primary schools criss cross at this junction.

They should also consider the quality of building. As far as they are concerned, it is merely a piece of land to be exploited for cheaply constructed, almost prefabricated units, with pokey living quarters. For us, it is bordering on an architecturally interesting area.

I want sympathetically built residences, in keeping with the local area, or alternatively, an architecturally innovative design, like Bedzed, that is

a truly sustainable scheme in construction…(and an) attempt … to help residents achieve a near ‘carbon-neutral’ lifestyle.

This is radically different from the approach that seeks to maximise profits in seemingly the simplest way – shops and flats, system built, confident in the knowledge that Planning is just a tiresome procedure that puts unnecessary obstacles in the path of development; that local residents, ultimately, have little power; of playing the game of meeting the community, (who are all stupid in their little old houses and council flats) who, really, don’t matter.

I find it difficult to explain to a neighbour, who works in the voluntary sector, why it is justifiable for a business to seek to make profits. I think she somehow believes it is dirty, or perhaps sinful, to seek profit. It is even more difficult to explain to an undiluted capitalist why there is a moral case to consider factors other than profits. They do not have to live with the consequences of their actions, but the residents of the community on which they wish to impose their gargantuan monstrosity do.

(1) PPG3 – 2. provide sufficient housing land but give priority to re-using previously-developed land within urban areas, bringing empty homes back into use and converting existing buildings, in preference to the development of greenfield sites;

PPG3 - 49.Local authorities should promote developments which combine a mix of land uses, including housing, either on a site or within individual buildings such as flats over shops.

(2) Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment - CABE - We believe that well designed homes, streets, parks, work-places, schools and hospitals are the fundamental right of everyone.

(3)

there has been increasing awareness amongst company executives and employees that, in a globalised world, decisions and actions can have unforeseen consequences in many different locations. As this awareness has grown, so has the idea that corporations must ensure that, at a minimum, their business activities do not have an adverse impact on the various "stakeholders" they affect - including workers, consumers, local communities and the environment. After years of investment deregulation and trade liberalisation, companies are realising that, with rights, come responsibilities. A number of firms have taken steps to identify and address areas where their activities pose a risk to the well-being of people and the environment.