The moral obligations of business

True. Phil, we long discussed this matter before (See What are the moral obligations of your business?, May 2).
A fresh philosophy and a new doctrine are needed the most to evaluate the upcoming investments profitability. The profit goes beyond its conventional and simple meaning. Society needs would be a new market force. But a question runs through my mind: How can we practically integrate a social profit in the prevailing financial questions?

My university ran an intensely aware commerce, economics, law and accounting degree in the mid-70’s and as I am aware, through and into the 2000s (See The moral obligations of business, May 2).
Amongst the Harvard Business School MBA case studies we ploughed through in our undergrad degree, our professors threw in a lot to do with the social responsibility of big business. As one grows up and becomes more aware of one's surroundings, one realises that those organisations who think profit is one-sided are completely wrong. Even those companies who think that 'strategic philanthropy and community investment under the banner of corporate social responsibility' are one-off events, or worse still, a means to divert community attention from what they are really doing (such as environmental rape and pillage, or hitting various parts of the community in the way the Woolworths/Coles juggernaut does into small business capital and income streams), think again. That one-eyed profit you are suggesting costs the community in other areas.
It's not that I am suggesting profit and business is for a bunch of weaklings, but consider being a shareholder, who thinks one's shares are worth X, but your investment portfolio is based on unsustainable income streams.
We have big 'bubbles' in the community. People can and do communicate. Anyone who thinks the community does not source its information from a wide range of sources, and do not communicate with one another, is ignorant and or wrong. The community punishes corporates who believe they have the God given right to do what they want to.

Limited liability is a safety net conceded by society to investors and directors, sparing them the risk of losing their homes to pay debts of a failed business (See The moral obligations of business, May 2). It recognises that by supporting risks, great benefits to society can come from attracting entrepreneurs to initiate and develop businesses.
With the freedom that society thereby concedes them, businesses have a responsibility to act with justice and a social conscience. This does not mandate a particular, one-size-fits-all action in relation to any given issue such as stewardship of the environment, but certainly that they assess social impacts of their actions. Getting both the social contract and the business contracts right is the constant challenge, and doubly rewarding.

Well put, Phil (See The moral obligations of business, May 2). I guess the ultimate manifestation of what you are arguing is full integration – that is, putting social purpose at the centre of business strategy.
In this way the business can organise around a social outcome, as argued by Collins in Good to Great. Of course, there would still need to be a fair return for capital risk but this would flow from delivering the social purpose rather than being the central reason for being.

Shades of: "It's a business to do pleasure with you!" (See The moral obligations of business, May 2.)
Any immanent profitability, should it ever be perceived to obtain for even a fleeting moment, is entirely subjective, commensurate with "Wits" g_el'asticised stretch of his wh_im'agination.
A business intent on not working towards an 'acceptable' level of social responsibility, or without an easily recognised transparency, if it has social inclination, runs the risk of being dubbed with an eponym just like that of Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott who 'landed' himself right in it... all by himself! The 'Laws of Compensation' have ever stood the test of time just as 'Nature abhors a vacuum'.

Moral obligations? No moral support! (See The moral obligations of business, May 2.)
As owner of several companies over the last 40 years, I've seen that moral support by many companies in our communities is invariably a one way street – mostly take and not much give. For example, the phone runs hot at Pacific Brands, with people calling for support to the local footy club or the local bush fire brigade or funds and donations for the kids' park down the street. It happens all the time. In return, the last thing they would think of is buying 'Bonds' brand underpants when they need a pair in moral recognition of their support. It's a two-way street.