Recividism is high in miscreant corporations. Moral deviance and psychopaty, it seems, need not be career limiting personality traits. This, together with centuries of in breeding and cloning has led to reduced institutional intelligence and a dearth of strategic capability making repeat offences inevitable. In the last month, BP, GlaxoSmithKline and Tesco have all been in the dock.
Putting profits before people has demonstrably failed as a strategy (see global financial meltdown & my previous blogs if you’re not convinced). Myself and others have been making the business case for ethics for longer than Justin Bieber’s been on solids (though rumour has it he’s regressed to a liquid diet). Take care of people and the planet. Put ethics at the heart of your business and the profits will take care of themselves. It’s not rocket science. Time and again we see that greed and the pursuit of short term profits lead to corporate catastrophe. Yet, it remains the primary corporate driver.
At the start of the month, BP was found quilty of gross negligence for the Deepwater Horizon explosion which killed 11 people and caused environmental carnage. The share price fell by 5%, wiping in excess of £5bn off its stock market value. Had BPs directors taken on board the learnings from a similar explosion only a few years earlier, the Deepwater disaster could have been avoided.
Yesterday, Tesco was forced to suspend four senior executives and call in investigators following the discovery that its profits had been artificially inflated by £250m. More than £2bn was wiped off its share value. A whistleblower warned that payments from suppliers were being irregularly booked and business costs were being misrepresented.
Last week, Chinese police accused GSK's former head of operations in the country of ordering employees to commit bribery on a widespread scale. Four senior managers from GSK’s China business were arrested last July while investigating £320m in potential bribes to individuals in order to secure higher market share & prices. Mark Reilly, who led GSK’s China business until the bribery scandal first broke last year, allegedly “pressed his sales teams to bribe hospitals, doctors and health institutions”, according to Chinese police.
The charges against GSK could lead to the cancellation of its business licenses in a major growth market. Reilly also faces jail.
There were suggestions that these allegations compromised GSK’s corporate integrity. I would argue that, if corporate integrity was a GSK priority, this scandal, like the one involving the reported use of black orphans as guinea pigs for drug trials or the Seroxat scandals before that, would not have happened.
A number of years ago I wrote to some UK charities that had awarded GSK gold star employer status for disability. I asked them how they squared the allocation of such a prestigious accolade with the recent BBC Panorama programme which exposed alleged evidence about GSK’s handling of concerns about their drug Seroxat (e.g. that it’s linked to aggression, suicide and dependency)?
I asked them to respond to the evidence which seemed to indicate that GSK had been aware of some of these dangers for a number of years but withheld crucial information from the public domain, only publishing trials that showed positive outcomes. It is also claimed that GSK knew Seroxat to be harmful to children, yet one month after the previous Panorama programme, where they denied this, they sought a licence for Seroxat to be prescribed to children. Although not licensed for this age group, it is alleged that GSK knew GP’s were prescribing it to them, based on the positive trial results published. What GP’s and the public did not know was that:
“GlaxoSmithKline's own clinical trial data revealed that the drug simply didn't work in depressed children. Worse still it made them up to three times more likely to self harm and attempt suicide than depressed children who were just given sugar pills. This was evidence the regulator had never seen before”. (Taken from Panorama transcript of 3 Oct.)
Panorama also produced, what it claimed to be, a confidential internal memo indicating that GSK knew that Seroxat, also known as Paroxetine, didn't work in depressed children as long ago as 1998.
SSB CONFIDENTIAL – FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY – October 1998
"It would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated as this would undermine the profile of Paroxetine."
GSK’s apparent withholding of these clinical trials is the subject of an investigation and the programme indicated that criminal charges may be brought. My concern, then & now, is as much related to the ethical as it is with the potential criminal implications. In addition to many Seroxat users themselves, numerous eminent doctors were prepared to speak out on the Panorama programme, including the President of The Royal College of Psychiatrists.
I put all of this to the charity, which had no defence. Yet GSK retained its “gold member” champion of disability status on their website. I was told that member companies of the charity made financial contributions for that honour.
When will shareholders, government and business leaders (BP, GSK & Tesco’s boards are dominated by a white, male “like minded” elite) wake up to the fact that people, and how we treat them, is central, not peripheral, to profit making. Unless and until power is shared equally between women and men, and until marginalised voices are heard, the groupthink that lunges our world from one crisis to another, will prevail.
Tuesday 23 September 2014
Sunday 14 September 2014
Darfur "Peacekeeping Mission" was Doomed to Fail
Heart felt thanks to the visionary team at the Independent on Sunday for being the only Western media to run with this story. More details are published in today’s paper.
In April, the UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) came under scrutiny amid allegations that it was covering up crimes by Sudanese government forces against civilians.
In a leaked report published by US Magazine, Foreign Policy, a former UNAMID spokesperson, Aicha El-Basri, gave accounts of several transgressions wherein the joint mission failed in its primary mandate, which is to protect civilians and humanitarians. As a result of these allegations, the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon instigated an internal investigation. On Wednesday I was informed by a contact on the ground that UNAMID’s head, Mohamed Ibn Chambas, had stepped down (there was no official UN announcement making the story hard to corroborate initially), just weeks before the report’s findings are due to be published.
Darfuri civilians, I’m told, are indifferent to Chambas’ departure. Two weeks ago he was reported as saying “UNAMID cannot stop government forces [from] enter [ing] the camps for the displaced”, despite having the resources and mandate to do just that. Whilst Chambas certainly won’t be missed, Darfuris have given up any hope or expectation that UNAMID will ever fulfil its mandate towards them.
The mission was deployed to Darfur in 2008. It costs an estimated 1.4 billion dollars annually, making it the worlds most expensive and arguably least effective, peacekeeping force. So sullied is the reputation of UNAMID amongst Darfuris (approximately 2 million people have been newly displaced since its arrival, most by violence) that many believe they are working for the Sudanese government. The history of incompetence dates back to its inception and has been a constant throughout.
In August, a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, described UNAMID as being largely ineffectual in protecting civilians from violence. The report warned of an escalation of government led attacks on civilians in the region making accurate and timely reporting more crucial than ever. HRW berates the mission for its failure to report detailed findings, including civilian death tolls, estimates of property destruction, and alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. In fact, the mission has not reported on human rights issues, including the widespread use of rape as a weapon of war, since 2009.
Last week New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, leaked data from a UNICEF document. In it he states that, 45% of children in central Darfur, 40% in East Darfur and 35% in West and North Darfur suffer from chronic malnutrition. This condition commonly leads to "stunting", which is a retarding of children's growth and development, amongst other things. The UN cannot be allowed to prevent the gathering and publication of damning data such as this in an apparent bid to obfuscate genocidal activity and its failure to stop it.
UNAMID was arguably doomed to fail. It is based on a false premise, one that assumes there is a peace to keep. Peace not only eludes Darfuris, its utterance taunts them. The people in camps, lying doubled up from starvation induced abdominal spasms, know that there are no deals to be made with the devil. Al Bashir has signed several, so called peace deals, but honoured none. Peace cannot be brokered as long as the UN allows Sudanese forces to drop bombs on civilians.
At what point and at what human cost will the UN stop the crippling charade of appeasement and complicity? If Ban Ki-moon is serious about his pledge to put ‘Rights up Front’ in the UN’s work, why is Darfur always languishing at the back of the queue?
In April, the UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) came under scrutiny amid allegations that it was covering up crimes by Sudanese government forces against civilians.
In a leaked report published by US Magazine, Foreign Policy, a former UNAMID spokesperson, Aicha El-Basri, gave accounts of several transgressions wherein the joint mission failed in its primary mandate, which is to protect civilians and humanitarians. As a result of these allegations, the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon instigated an internal investigation. On Wednesday I was informed by a contact on the ground that UNAMID’s head, Mohamed Ibn Chambas, had stepped down (there was no official UN announcement making the story hard to corroborate initially), just weeks before the report’s findings are due to be published.
Darfuri civilians, I’m told, are indifferent to Chambas’ departure. Two weeks ago he was reported as saying “UNAMID cannot stop government forces [from] enter [ing] the camps for the displaced”, despite having the resources and mandate to do just that. Whilst Chambas certainly won’t be missed, Darfuris have given up any hope or expectation that UNAMID will ever fulfil its mandate towards them.
The mission was deployed to Darfur in 2008. It costs an estimated 1.4 billion dollars annually, making it the worlds most expensive and arguably least effective, peacekeeping force. So sullied is the reputation of UNAMID amongst Darfuris (approximately 2 million people have been newly displaced since its arrival, most by violence) that many believe they are working for the Sudanese government. The history of incompetence dates back to its inception and has been a constant throughout.
In August, a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, described UNAMID as being largely ineffectual in protecting civilians from violence. The report warned of an escalation of government led attacks on civilians in the region making accurate and timely reporting more crucial than ever. HRW berates the mission for its failure to report detailed findings, including civilian death tolls, estimates of property destruction, and alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. In fact, the mission has not reported on human rights issues, including the widespread use of rape as a weapon of war, since 2009.
Last week New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, leaked data from a UNICEF document. In it he states that, 45% of children in central Darfur, 40% in East Darfur and 35% in West and North Darfur suffer from chronic malnutrition. This condition commonly leads to "stunting", which is a retarding of children's growth and development, amongst other things. The UN cannot be allowed to prevent the gathering and publication of damning data such as this in an apparent bid to obfuscate genocidal activity and its failure to stop it.
UNAMID was arguably doomed to fail. It is based on a false premise, one that assumes there is a peace to keep. Peace not only eludes Darfuris, its utterance taunts them. The people in camps, lying doubled up from starvation induced abdominal spasms, know that there are no deals to be made with the devil. Al Bashir has signed several, so called peace deals, but honoured none. Peace cannot be brokered as long as the UN allows Sudanese forces to drop bombs on civilians.
At what point and at what human cost will the UN stop the crippling charade of appeasement and complicity? If Ban Ki-moon is serious about his pledge to put ‘Rights up Front’ in the UN’s work, why is Darfur always languishing at the back of the queue?
Monday 1 September 2014
Mc Donalds, Im Not Lov'n It
I’ve never been a fan of Mc D’s. In my university days, myself & a friend popped in to the O’Connell Street branch in Dublin. A quick pit stop to line our stomachs as cheaply as possible, preferring to use our pennies to swell the student union bar coffers instead. My friend, a vegetarian had not been before. She asked for a veggie burger and got a guerkin in a bun. That was McDonalds take on vegetarian at the time.
Ever since seeing the Mc Libel documentary, wherein two Greepeace activists took on the fast food behemoth and won, I vowed that I would never again cross the threshold of an edifice with a giant yellow M. A pledge I have kept, apart from 2 occasions, both of which were driven by necessity rather than choice. The last time was a few days ago. The mitigating circumstances were as follows:
1) It was late at night and we had to catch the Chunnel (Calais to Folkestone) early the next morning
2) My 6 year old had been forced to forego food in order to make it to the port on time & was starting to eat the upholstery of the hired campervan
3) It was a choice of loading up with wine in the supermarket or feeding said child. Fortunately, we spotted a Mc D’s while we were loading up the vino
4) It was either Mc D’s or a day old baguette & everyone knows Baguettes have to be eaten fresh. It would breach cultural protocol & international incidents have been born of far less effrontery.
I ordered the Mc Fillet and small fries. I couldn’t taste the fries for all the salt they were smothered in. My request to exchange the fries for some without salt caused a near diplomatic episode. “Did you ask for them without salt?” said the “crew member” as though she was prosecuting me for murder. “No, I retorted, but I didn’t order my fries with salt either”. If I didn’t ask for salt, why did you add it without asking me”? “If I’d wanted salt with a sprinkling of fries, that’s what I would have ordered (I said this last bit in my head as my French wasn’t up to that level of complexity)”.
The discussion ensued with Mc D’s rep arguing that all Mc D’s fries are served with lashings of salt so what did I expect. I pointed out that I’m not one of their regulars (evidenced by the fact that my waistline is still discernible) & asked if it didn’t occur to them that some customers, given a choice, would prefer not to ingest their weekly sodium allowance in just one portion of fries? Either she couldn’t think of a clever retort or she just gave up the will to live, but I got my sodium free fries.
Having done some research on Mc D’s nutritional components I came across numerous reports citing a document apparently published by Mc Donald’s last year. It set out the ingredients that go into their fries. All 17 of them. One website elaborated on what some of those ingredients actually comprise of. They range from hydrogenated soybean oil which they claim is largely extracted from genetically modified soybeans to dimethypolysiloxane, an anti foaming agent, which appears to be an industrial chemical and allegedly carries a host of safety concerns and TBHQ, which is cited as a petroleum based butane like ingredient (lighter fuel), which is allegedly used as a preservative. The list, including alleged hormone disrupters, goes on.
Next time you want to order some fries in Mc D’s you might want to take the list & ask them to hold all but 1 of the 17 ingredients. The potato.
Ever since seeing the Mc Libel documentary, wherein two Greepeace activists took on the fast food behemoth and won, I vowed that I would never again cross the threshold of an edifice with a giant yellow M. A pledge I have kept, apart from 2 occasions, both of which were driven by necessity rather than choice. The last time was a few days ago. The mitigating circumstances were as follows:
1) It was late at night and we had to catch the Chunnel (Calais to Folkestone) early the next morning
2) My 6 year old had been forced to forego food in order to make it to the port on time & was starting to eat the upholstery of the hired campervan
3) It was a choice of loading up with wine in the supermarket or feeding said child. Fortunately, we spotted a Mc D’s while we were loading up the vino
4) It was either Mc D’s or a day old baguette & everyone knows Baguettes have to be eaten fresh. It would breach cultural protocol & international incidents have been born of far less effrontery.
I ordered the Mc Fillet and small fries. I couldn’t taste the fries for all the salt they were smothered in. My request to exchange the fries for some without salt caused a near diplomatic episode. “Did you ask for them without salt?” said the “crew member” as though she was prosecuting me for murder. “No, I retorted, but I didn’t order my fries with salt either”. If I didn’t ask for salt, why did you add it without asking me”? “If I’d wanted salt with a sprinkling of fries, that’s what I would have ordered (I said this last bit in my head as my French wasn’t up to that level of complexity)”.
The discussion ensued with Mc D’s rep arguing that all Mc D’s fries are served with lashings of salt so what did I expect. I pointed out that I’m not one of their regulars (evidenced by the fact that my waistline is still discernible) & asked if it didn’t occur to them that some customers, given a choice, would prefer not to ingest their weekly sodium allowance in just one portion of fries? Either she couldn’t think of a clever retort or she just gave up the will to live, but I got my sodium free fries.
Having done some research on Mc D’s nutritional components I came across numerous reports citing a document apparently published by Mc Donald’s last year. It set out the ingredients that go into their fries. All 17 of them. One website elaborated on what some of those ingredients actually comprise of. They range from hydrogenated soybean oil which they claim is largely extracted from genetically modified soybeans to dimethypolysiloxane, an anti foaming agent, which appears to be an industrial chemical and allegedly carries a host of safety concerns and TBHQ, which is cited as a petroleum based butane like ingredient (lighter fuel), which is allegedly used as a preservative. The list, including alleged hormone disrupters, goes on.
Next time you want to order some fries in Mc D’s you might want to take the list & ask them to hold all but 1 of the 17 ingredients. The potato.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)