Talking about the limitations and the potential of capitalism is the flavour of the season. The turmoil in the financial sector, its ramification across geographies, and the long road to recovery have led to questions about the philosophical underpinnings of the market capital-based model. Conscious Capitalism needs to be examined in this context.
Contemporary writings offer three strands of arguments in defining enterprises with a conscience. These strands, which pertain to the equitable and humane face of capitalism, started emerging much before the crisis, but the context for examining these models is important in the post-crisis period.
The first strand does not question the basic structure of capitalism. It accepts the philosophical underpinnings, but argues for tweaking. The tweaking is articulated as transparency; disclosure of interests; independent oversight; and better corporate governance practices. This strand looks at failures as the failure of governance rather than as an inherent philosophical flaw.
The second strand argues for alternative forms of organisation. In the past, the alternative to capital-based enterprise was co-operatives, a patronage-based enterprise. There are not-for-profit entities that do not distribute any residual claims - not having "maximising return on capital" is the core purpose. A new dimension in this strand comes from Muhammad Yunus as "Social Business", which ring-fences profiteering while allowing nominal investments to be taken out.
Conscious Capitalism falls into the third strand, one that accepts the basic framework of the capital-centric model but would want it to be accountable on other parameters. This includes the clutter of social enterprises. Customer centricity, ecological sustainability, ethical practices, employee engagement, and patient capital without a compromise on the financial returns are the features of such enterprises. Depending on the type of business, entrepreneur and investor, the focus on these capital-plus factors would change.
The authors provide a framework for "conscious capitalism" by integrating four aspects of business: management of culture, leadership, articulation of purpose (beyond earning profits) and integrating the stakeholders. The basic message is that if you do no evil, your business will survive, prosper and earn competitive returns without guilt. A large part of the book is about the business of Whole Foods Market (WFM) and the choices that the firm had to make at various points in time. The authors also draw on the experiences of other "conscious" businesses such as the Tatas, Posco, Walmart, Patagonia and Southwest Airlines. However, the businesses that are classified as "conscious" have had their share of controversy.
The folklore of the Tata group's employee centricity in the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorist attack is used as an instance to show the "consciousness" of the Tata group. However, the Tata group is not just about Taj Hotels - a difficult situation of larger ethical dilemma at Singur is not touched upon. Or that of Posco's land acquisition process as a "conscious" capitalist. Does Walmart's zero waste-to-landfill aspiration make it a conscious capitalist, even as literature suggests insensitive handling of employee healthcare benefits that were "outsourced" to the state?
The middle ground argument has thick borders between what is acceptable and what is not. A practice could become desirable on the basis of a strong argument. Take this quote: "People ask us, 'Why does WFM sell some foods that aren't particularly healthy?'" The justification is that "ultimately our customers 'vote with their money' every time they shop. Just as, over time, they have voted for more and more organic foods, we hope they will gradually vote the unhealthiest foods out of our stores by choosing not to buy them". This argument could easily be applied to Philip Morris. The authors dismiss this "great" (as described by Jim Collins) firm, and ask: "What has been the net impact of Philip Morris, the world's largest tobacco company for much of the past century?" Storing not-so-healthy food in WFM is a matter of customer choice, while "the world is (not) a better place because the company [Philip Morris] exists".
There are ways to make a persuasive argument. The most impressive is to have a logical argument based on consistency. The least impressive is the evangelical method that invokes the unknown - a sense of shame and guilt to convince. Unfortunately, the book employs more of the latter strategy than the former. Although there is a need to redefine capitalism in a world that is getting excessively polarised, this book does not add to the intellectual debate on the matter. It gives a series of convenient examples retrofitted to the "conscious capitalism" argument. This problem occurs when the practitioner narrates his achievements and the academic takes a back seat without distilling practices into economic arguments. The book loses because it has more of John Mackey (co-CEO of WFM) and less of Raj Sisodia (professor at Bentley University).
The reviewer is visiting faculty at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore
mssriram@gmail.com
mssriram@gmail.com
CONSCIOUS CAPITALISM
Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business
John Mackey and Raj Sisodia
Harvard Business Review Press; 334 pages
