CSR at the Oscars? SlumDog Millionnaire

I was very pleased to hear today that SlumDog Millionnaire (the motion picture) has won the 2009 Oscar for best film.  This is not because I do not like the other movies it was competing with. All are really excellent. Without being a close follower of the Oscars, however, I dare say it may be for the first time that a movie of this sort, the sort of SlumDog Millionnaire, wins an Oscar.

By a movie of this sort I mean one which has, intentionally or not, succeeded in bringing in ”development issues” such as poverty, slums, inequality, injustice, exploitation, crime, corruption, mafia, etc., plus the very values and cultures these development issues would rest on, as the very background from which the story unfolds.  In this, though, these issues are not the story; they are, however, imbuing the story in its every aspect and by this creating an incredible awareness about them.

The story itself is a story about love and destiny, in fact a story about the love which is the destiny of the main character Jamal. Because of what I say in the above paragraph, you may think that the movie is incredibly depressing. Truth is though (according to me) that it is quite the opposite (not just because of the Bollywood ending!), it is one of the most positive movies I have seen, I guess precisely because of the completeness of what it shows and how it shows life can be beautiful.  Other movies may tend to show that life is beautiful, too, however perhaps not showing life as it is, or rather as it is increasingly becoming nowadays, in terms of ”developing” and ”developed” being increasingly collided and super-imposed.

SlumDog Millionnaire does precisely that, it collides and superimposes ”developing” and ”developed”, this in a way as seamless and non-preaching as it can be. The purpose of the movie is not to tell you how little you know (about development), and give away messages already digested. In this sense, would you call this an example of socially responsible movie-making? I think yes. Why? Because by the story being as it is, and told as it is, it helps those seeing the movie to learn about it and the circumstances it may have been inspired by to their best.

”Development issues” are not the focus of the movie. SlumDog Millionnaire does not throw these into your face, almost as if blaming you for not knowing about them, not having experienced them, not being in them (which makes me think of another movie doing precisely that, i.e., Seven Pounds, and for which reason I find weak …). They are, however, presented in a way that creates the experience of these being precisely what life (our peoples’ life, on planet Earth, now) is made of. And if you were to think about it, this is that way. It is just that we (some of us, all of us, considering that ‘’development issues’’ are about both ends of the spectrum!) do not see it all at once as we can see it in that movie.

Hopefully more movies like this will be made, this without taking away the benefit of being touched and struck by what they show. The fact that a movie such as this ended up winning the Oscar is truly indicative of what the world is going through at the moment … A couple of years ago a movie of this sort would have gone much praised yet unnoticed.

Have not seen SlumDog Millionnaire yet? Go get your tickets.

Systemic Transformations

 

Lifeworth published their annual review in February this year. I just read through it (awfully behind!!) and wanted to share the below:

“Humanity’s challenge is to find ways to improve human wellbeing within the limits of the Earth’s resources; to stop living as if we have another planet to go to” explains Jem Bendell. For this, Professor Grayson adds, “we need a new mindset for Corporate Sustainability to stimulate innovation and create radically new business models.”

http://www.lifeworth.net/

True, and as Jem Bendell would say – our current systems have to be transformed and not just reformed. Transformation is about a new culture, mindset, vision and emotion underlying what we do. A mere reform(ation) would just shift pieces around, and about, without changing our approach and what we, as human beings, and beings, see and can see through every day.

I am writing my CSR Certificate thesis on organisational learning and knowledge management approaches to the mainstreaming of business ethics … I can see now that, whatever we apply organisational learning and knowledge management to, it can be transformed. Organisational learning and knowledge management, especially if applied together, are a gateway for transformations. Putting organisational learning and knowledge management to the service of business ethics can ensure such transformations will contribute towards a world more just and more sustainable. It is only logical, no?

 

 

Enron – the lesson

I had a CSR (corporate social responsibility) class today (as part of a Certificate in CSR I am doing at the University of Geneva http://www.unige.ch/formcont/csr.html). We are covering business ethics this weekend. To start it all off, we watched ‘Enron: The smartest guys in the room’, a brilliant documentary loaded with facts, analyses of what and why it happened, as well as personal experiences and views of people who have been involved with the company. A wonderful couple of hours that I do recommend you to have if you get the chance.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413845/

There is probably no need to re-tell the Enron story which is very rich with many facts and twists to it. Just quickly:

Enron was founded by somebody called Ken Lay in the mid-eighties as an energy trading company. Ken Lay was a supporter of energy market deregulation on which principle he founded the business. The company began in the oil business after which it scoped out to working in electricity, Internet bandwidth and even ‘weather trading’. (…??) It was characterised by a culture of aggressiveness and risk-taking especially among the company’s traders.

The company’s approaches to accounting were highly questionable, such as ‘constructive accounting’ and/or hypothetical value accounting. This meant that Enron would write in a profit the minute it was estimated it would be there without it actually having gone to the books at all. This ”constructive accounting” ended up creating an illusion of a very profitable company – this (illusion) raised Enron’s share prices by 50% in one year, then by 90%. Meanwhile, this illusion was disguising the company’s continuous losses. It could not last forever because of that the rest of the market was (hopefully!) not an illusion as well – this led to Enron’s collapse in 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1780075.stm
The question is: Why did this happen?

Off course loads has been written on this already and so there is no point in over-elaborating. Still, just simply, the issue is two-fold:

1. First and foremost, Enron was not alone. (this is often not mentioned)

Not only Enron top executives (the chairman, the CEO, the CFO, key traders, amongst others), but also most of Enron’s partners, allies and customers, such as banks (Citibank, Merill Lynch, amongst others), audit companies (Arthur Andersen), legal businesses and other partners - all big names – were willing to be in it together with Enron, driven by a single motive, money-making. (imagine that)

The Enron case is a fraud driven not just from within Enron, despite that Enron orchestrated it. A chain of abuse of shareholders’ money spread from Enron, Enron’s traders to outside of Enron. Top people at Enron and Enron’s partners were, with their actions, or lack of such, supporting the abuse. Committing fraud was so much part of the culture of Enron, as well as, to a smaller extent, those who were working with Enron, that this seemed like the ‘right’ thing to do to those who went along. Are they to be excused?

Certainly not, they are not to be excused. Enron’s case is an example of a people anc corporate cultures chain reaction. It shows how bad cultures can lead even good people to do bad things. We should all not forget this. Recognising the merits of a corporate culture, as well as questioning this, is important. We all have the power to think on our own feet and act in the way that is right.

2. Second and not less important is that the US energy market had been de-regulated. This is what made possible the trading of what would have otherwise been a public service - this possibility was abused by Enron’s traders in California. In other words, it was not just Enron and its partners. It was also the US government. Tough, hein? The whole system was creating an opportunity for Enron to do abuse.

Is this ethical? Can corporations be left to do whatever they want with customers and shareholders provided that they can do it? … The answer to this is no. Still, they may not stop because of this. We can never be sure. And so, it is important to pre-empt instances of abuse by corporations by creating systems for them to work in, systems which do not create opportunities for abuse.

 

The Enron case sure raises a number of ethical issues. After I watched the movie, I questioned my own approach to the way in which I ‘do business’ in any organisation and context. What are my motives? Are these ethical? In whatever I do, am I doing the right thing? Ethical, and ethics, is a construct that we need to understand and create ourselves.  I think it useful if we take a moment to ask these questions of ourselves and think about our approaches to what we do, if necessary. Business, any business, should not be driven by money but rather by the values that we invest in it. And, we, i.e., YOU, ME, decide what these values are.