Distribution Network
Content
You can’t overlook bad practices when identifying responsible companies, argues Rory Murphy
As a professional with nearly 30 years’ experience of representing finance sector workers, including those from Barclays, I was surprised to see the bank being honoured so highly in the Business in the Community Corporate Responsibility Index in June this year. Despite being described by a recent BBC One Whistleblower programme as ‘having a culture of ruthlessness and lies which will shock their customers’, Barclays was one of the Bitc Index’s Platinum performers – the highest possible grade.
Whistleblower illuminated the attitudes of some Barclays managers ‘mis-selling’ and not respecting customers they dealt with. All companies encounter problems from time to time, and large institutions like Barclays will be no exception; the bank says the problems were unrepresentative. But for CSR policies to be widely valued, ethical practices must run through an organization in its entirety, and not just be for strategic self-promotion. Just as being a good Catholic isn’t only about going to mass on a Sunday, nor is good CSR solely about ticking certain boxes for an award.
It is of course invidious to single out Barclays for particular criticism. But the wider point is: how can a company display bad practice in some areas and simultaneously be a Platinum performer in the Bitc Index? This raises the question of what purpose the index serves, how accurate its measurements of a good company are, and whether these measurements can be trusted.
What does the Bitc Index do, if not accurately sort the wheat from the chaff of ethical corporations? Whatever the specific awards were for, unethical behaviour in any section of an organization should affect its overall credibility. Otherwise it leaves the impression that businesses are implementing minimum best practice for publicity, and such minimalistic ethics are being rewarded by bodies that should be undertaking more comprehensive analyses of best practice.
It is not surprising that participation in the Bitc Index is decreasing. If the Index is not able to carry out its primary function, which is to distinguish good corporations from bad, then it has failed in its purpose of providing a genuine measurement of what constitutes a responsible company, and is degenerating into a promotional tool. For an index that sets out to be an unbiased and accurate assessor of best practice, it is in danger of delegitimizing the very function that makes it of value.
Rory Murphy is director of Propellor Consulting. He was formerly general secretary of the UK-based banking union Unifi.
As a professional with nearly 30 years’ experience of representing finance sector workers, including those from Barclays, I was surprised to see the bank being honoured so highly in the Business in the Community Corporate Responsibility Index in June this year. Despite being described by a recent BBC One Whistleblower programme as ‘having a culture of ruthlessness and lies which will shock their customers’, Barclays was one of the Bitc Index’s Platinum performers – the highest possible grade.
Whistleblower illuminated the attitudes of some Barclays managers ‘mis-selling’ and not respecting customers they dealt with. All companies encounter problems from time to time, and large institutions like Barclays will be no exception; the bank says the problems were unrepresentative. But for CSR policies to be widely valued, ethical practices must run through an organization in its entirety, and not just be for strategic self-promotion. Just as being a good Catholic isn’t only about going to mass on a Sunday, nor is good CSR solely about ticking certain boxes for an award.
It is of course invidious to single out Barclays for particular criticism. But the wider point is: how can a company display bad practice in some areas and simultaneously be a Platinum performer in the Bitc Index? This raises the question of what purpose the index serves, how accurate its measurements of a good company are, and whether these measurements can be trusted.
What does the Bitc Index do, if not accurately sort the wheat from the chaff of ethical corporations? Whatever the specific awards were for, unethical behaviour in any section of an organization should affect its overall credibility. Otherwise it leaves the impression that businesses are implementing minimum best practice for publicity, and such minimalistic ethics are being rewarded by bodies that should be undertaking more comprehensive analyses of best practice.
It is not surprising that participation in the Bitc Index is decreasing. If the Index is not able to carry out its primary function, which is to distinguish good corporations from bad, then it has failed in its purpose of providing a genuine measurement of what constitutes a responsible company, and is degenerating into a promotional tool. For an index that sets out to be an unbiased and accurate assessor of best practice, it is in danger of delegitimizing the very function that makes it of value.
Rory Murphy is director of Propellor Consulting. He was formerly general secretary of the UK-based banking union Unifi.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No