Blog

Yesterday, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its report on the state of our world with respect to global warming.  The IPCC issued what was called a “code red” for humanity, saying our race has “nowhere to run; nowhere to hide.”  Each ton of carbon dioxide emitted can now be calculated as to its impact on warming our planet.

I have not thought much about how moral capitalism would “solve” the problem of global warming and a human civilization needing energy like a newborn needs its mother’s milk.  But the other week, we convened a round table here in Minnesota for participants to contribute ideas, concerns and observations about global warming.  Great wildfires and high temperatures in our western states made the dialogue timely.  Listening to the comments took my thinking in a new direction, which I would like to sketch out for you here.

Roughly, if a ton of C02 emitted increases global temperatures, then a ton of CO2 withdrawn from the atmosphere would act to lower global temperatures.

First, I have been comfortable in the flow of stakeholder analysis that a moral capitalism manages its impacts on its stakeholders with a concern to limit negative externalities and enhance positive externalities.

But what is the relationship of a firm to our atmosphere?

Capitalist firms exist to provide private goods and services for individual customers through markets.  They are not designed to provide public goods.  That, we have thought, is the function of governments and, to some extent, of charitable non-profits and norm-maintaining institutions, like churches and schools.

Economists tell us that the difference between private and public goods is “rivalry.”  We can be rivals over private goods because if I have the hamburger, you do not.  We are rivals for enjoyment of the good.  Public goods are different.  In theory, both you and I can use the same air or bridge.  My usage does not prevent you from also enjoying the good.

Global warming is a public “bad” – both you, I and many more suffer simultaneously from its effects.  We are all “owners,” in some sense, of the conditions created by global warming, but our ownership interests are losing value as the “bad” crowds out the “good.”

Global warming is, therefore, a “condition,” not a good or a service which can be held against the claims of rivals.

Accordingly, capitalism, even a very moral one, is not designed to trade in conditions.  Firms may impact conditions in how they produce goods and services and the goods and services which they produce impact conditions.

Capitalism does not have an efficient means to remedy the accumulation of CO2 in our atmosphere.

But if CO2 was a “thing” – a good or service which could be bought and sold – then capitalism and markets could easily take direct action.

Actually, CO2 indeed is a “thing.”  It is a chemical compound.  In the air, it is a gas.  In coal and diamonds, it is a solid.  We can also liquify CO2.

Suppose we had technology which could extract CO2 from the air and turn it into a commodity.  Then, some companies could invent the technology and go into the business of extracting a natural resource from our atmosphere.  Others could then process and sell the CO2 to end users in forms which would not allow it to gasify and return to the atmosphere.

The market problem then becomes one of finding customers for CO2.  This is what cap and trade laws attempt to do.  Someone makes money by reducing the off-gassing of CO2 and selling the right to off-gas to another.  But that market does nothing to extract CO2, which has built up in the atmosphere during the last 100 years of industrialization using coal and oil/gas hydrocarbons as sources of humanized energy.

Now, governments are consumers, as well as individuals.  Why not have governments budget to buy CO2 extracted from the atmosphere?  They would immediately create a market into which firms could step and make money, if the pricing were right.

The government would then pay other companies to sequester the extracted CO2.  The public “bad’ of global warming would be gradually eliminated and all of humanity would benefit. Accordingly, the public should pay for gaining the good of reducing the bad.  Governments would finance the purchase of extracted CO2 and the sequestering of such an extracted chemical compound through the collection of taxes.

Thus, would moral government work synchronistically with moral capitalism to reduce the “bad” of global warming, while the world awaits the invention of new technology to generate electricity by means other than consumption of hydrocarbons.

The other day, I ran across a sermon by the Methodist founder, John Wesley, on the use of money. Many years ago, when dean of a law school at a Methodist university, I had heard the university chaplain quote Wesley to the point of “Earn as much as you can; save as much as you can; give away as much as you can,” but had never been given the text of his sermon making that case.

So, when I read his sermon No. 50 on the use of money, I had two quick thoughts: 1) this is a classic statement of the Protestant ethic, which German sociologist, Max Weber, accepted as the formative drive behind modern capitalism and 2) his sermon was an early version of moral capitalism.

Wesley led a movement within the Church of England focusing not on churches and rituals, but on inner spiritual awakening. Wesley was an Arminian who generously believed God to be lovingly open-minded about people and prepared to welcome all who had deep and abiding faith into a heavenly hereafter.

Wesley was theologically comfortable, including moral concerns for others in our seeking out a living in this word. He did not juxtapose money against morality, but called on good and true Christians – actually on all people of all faiths – to use money with moral awareness.

This is the ideal of moral capitalism.

Today’s efforts to include stakeholders in business models, to find a purpose for companies and to care for the environment (ESG, sustainability, stakeholder capitalism, etc.) logically follow from Wesley’s advocacy of creating worldly wealth and then using it to better the world.

Wesley presumed with the Judeo-Christian Book of Genesis that God was sincere in judging his creation to be “good” and with Jesus that “A good person produces good things from the treasury of a good heart and an evil person produces evil things from the treasury of an evil heart.” (Luke 6:45)

You may read excerpts from Wesley’s sermon here.

Recently, the new Executive Editor of the Washington Post wrote a letter to her customers describing her ethical aspirations for the “net impacts” of the Post on our culture and society.  What struck me about her statement is that she makes no mention of the traditional ethical standards which made journalism a learned “profession.”

Sally Buzbee wrote:

Dear Washington Post subscribers,

I couldn’t be more excited to serve as Executive Editor of the Washington Post.  I came here because of the respect I have for the institution and its people.  Over the last month, I’ve spent time meeting and learning from my new colleagues and it has been a pleasure putting faces to the names of the journalists we rely on for news that impacts our lives and everyday decisions. Their collective curiosity, vigor and passion for this important work is palpable and inspiring and it is a privilege to play a role in sharing their expertise with you.

I’ve spent my career pursuing the facts, seeking out stories of significance and holding the powerful to account.  To lead the biggest newsroom in the Washington Post’s history is an incredible honor for me.  But to also join the Washington Post at this moment in history feels like the beginning of a journey we are embarking on together.  The world is ever changing, yet our commitment to you and to the profession I love, is not.  We will continue to deliver the quality journalism that you have come to expect, reporting relevant and meaningful information and analysis in ways that are most accessible and convenient to you.

We’ll work daily to ensure the growing, diverse range of voices in our newsroom is heard and reflected and that we are diligently finding and telling the stories that spotlight the experiences of our diverse readers.

As you may have read, we’re expanding our global footprint, meaning you’ll have access to even more real-time coverage.  Establishing breaking-news hubs in Europe and Asia gives us the ability to cover live events as they are unfolding around the globe so you can depend on us for timely news reports at any hour, whether in Australia or on Capitol Hill.

We’re combining our legacy of deeply sourced, fact-based, investigative journalism with cutting-edge digital innovation, keeping us at the forefront of journalism’s future so that you are both informed and delighted.  You can look forward to more award-winning video and audio storytelling and insightful, beautiful and immersive graphic presentations.

The most important thing I want to share is that we’ll always have a relentless focus on you, our valued readers.  There is so much ahead.  I am thrilled to be part of the Washington Post’s future and hope you are, too.

Sally Buzbee
Executive Editor

The Society of Professionals Journalists (SPJ) has a code of ethics, which affirms these 4 moral objectives:

-Seek Truth and Report It

-Minimize Harm

-Act Independently

-Be Accountable and Transparent

To recognize that the arrival of the internet and social media has upended the business model for print newspapers and television networks, the Caux Round Table has considered what a contemporary code of ethics for journalists should include.

Here is the draft of such a code of ethics for journalists:

Principles:

1. Journalism is a quasi-public trust encumbered with fiduciary duties.  Journalism as a business provides a notable good of great merit for society.  News, information and well-argued opinion constitute a vital part of a society’s social capital.  Inaccurate news, false information and propaganda degrade a society’s capacity for finding common ground, mutual respect and tolerance.  The moral character of a society flourishes with responsible discourse to provide checks on extremism, stupidity and political authority.  Journalism is not entertainment.

2. Journalism as a business is community, not ownership, focused.  As a quasi-public trust, journalism does not seek to maximize financial returns for owners.  A business in journalism should be organized as a public-benefit corporation with its stock owned by philanthropic institutions.  Journalism companies must distinguish their rightful business model from the provision of that which is demeaning, dysfunctional, false, malicious, arbitrary and destructive of social capital.

3. The owners of companies providing journalism must support the creation of social capital.  Social capital – the reality of the social compact incubating justice, successful wealth creation and permitting the actualization of human dignity – is created over time by governments and civil society.  From the rule of law to physical infrastructures, from the quality of a society’s moral integrity and transparency of its decision-making to the depth and vitality of its culture, social capital demands investment of time, money, imagination and leadership.

4. Companies providing journalism will demand from their employees the highest standards of honesty, integrity and self-discipline in the craft of providing the highest quality news, information and well-argued opinion.

-These standards, as set forth in the SPJ code of ethics, are:

-Seek Truth and Report It

-Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair.  Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

-Minimize Harm

-Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

-Act Independently

-The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.

-Be Accountable and Transparent

-Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.

5. A journalist shall be competent and act with reasonable diligence.  Competent reporting and advocacy require knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for public dissemination of the journalist’s work product.

A journalist shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or fail to correct a false statement of material fact previously made to the public by the journalist; (2) fail to disclose to the public facts and authority known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to his or her published work; (3) offer evidentiary arguments that the journalist knows to be deceitful or a misrepresentation of substantial truth; or 4) allude to any matter that the journalist does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by credible testimony and evidence.

We were discussing recently among the staff who has responsibility to form moral persons who can have the intent and skills to bring about moral capitalism and moral government?

Simply put, the moral sense of each person is a product of the social capital provided to that individual and the human capital with which the individual is blessed or which that person accrues through their agency capabilities.

Encouraging the development of a robust moral sense has been the task of societies, I suppose, since our distant ancestors evolved from their less human forbearers. Great thinkers – Confucius, Aristotle, the Buddha, Adam Smith, Sigmund Freud – have given us advice on how to do this work of formation of character well.

Families are the point of departure for the formation of the moral sense, but we have evolved formal engagement of young minds with education and instruction.

Teachers, in many guises, not always as classroom instructors, are architects of the foundation for moral society, moral government and moral economics.

Teachers, then, have important social offices to fulfill; they have responsibilities, duties, to serve.

The Caux Round Table Principles for Government posit that public office is a public trust.

As public officials, teachers in public schools are trustees – they are stewards of power which are to be used for the good of the community and for the good of the students, not as a personal entitlement or sinecure, which draw more on rights of private property than they do of responsibilities for the public good.

Our fellows have made suggestions as to the content of a code of ethics for teachers, drawing on our Principles for Government.

You can review the proposed code here.

I would very much like to learn your thoughts.

America’s continuing crisis has brought the role of public school teachers and education to the forefront of cultural divisiveness. Many in education have come to believe that their duty is to educate students in the new norms of race consciousness to repair past injurious beliefs about themselves and others. Other Americans, mostly the less wealthy and with less prestigious educational credentials, are not supportive of this new educational agenda.

The conflict puts on the table for all societies the ethical responsibilities of teachers in public service.

As the approach of moral capitalism directs attention to the formation of robust social and human capitals, education is a most important capital input to successful wealth creation and social justice. Teachers, therefore, have important ethical responsibilities to their students; teachers are servant leaders in social capital formation.

In addition, the Caux Round Table Principles for Government provide ethical guidelines for those teachers working in public schools.

With a notable action last week by the National Education Association to advocate critical race theory in our public schools, I thought it timely to comment on the responsibilities of public school teachers as holders of a public office, which confers on them authority over students to be used as a public trust.

You may find my comment here.

I ask your help with a new Caux Round Table initiative – crafting a code of ethics for users of social media.

Providing platforms for social media is a very lucrative business. The market capitalization of Facebook (including Instagram) is $1 trillion, Twitter is $55 billion and Alphabet (Google) is $1.7 trillion.

Every business, presumably, is subject to ethical consideration in its business model, its products and services and their impacts on stakeholders.

Social media is now notorious for having negative social impacts. It facilitates 1) the undermining of trust; 2) giving scope to interpersonal enmity; 3) destroying reputations; 4) polarizing politics; 5) undermining in the public square reason and thoughtful analysis by giving scope to raw emotions, cognitive biases and disorderly ignorance; 6) putting obstacles in the way of free speaking and thinking; 7) promoting low self-esteem in girls and young women; and 8) disseminating disinformation and “fake news” – to mention only a few of the dysfunctions aggravated by social media.

Are the business platforms responsible for these negative impacts or is it those who use social media wrongfully and unethically, thoughtlessly and cruelly, who should be more respectful of others?

Use of social media is a power in our hands, which can be weaponized or used thoughtfully and carefully. All uses of power by our kind raise ethical concerns over abuse and fairness.

There are no standards published and recommended for the responsible use of social media by consumers of this product. Therefore, the Caux Round Table has asked its fellows for advice and guidance in shaping such a code of ethics for users of social media.

I attach here for your review the current draft of such an ethical code.

Please send me at your earliest convenience your advice and suggestions for improving the current draft statement.

You may recall that in February, I sent you a copy of our report on the covenants made by the Prophet Muhammad to respect and protect Christian communities.

After Pope Francis met with the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in May, the good offices of the Caux Round Table were sought to help draft a modern form of covenant in the spirit of the Prophet Muhammad’s promotion of mutuality and engagement between Christians and Muslims, such modern commitments of reciprocity between the communities to be considered for use in Iraq.

We asked for help from members of the study group which collaborated in drafting our report on the covenants of the Prophet. Their task was to reflect on what form a modern covenantal relationship between Christians and Muslims might take and what provisions might be most constructively included in such a document of mutual understanding.

Caux Round Table Chairman Emeritus, Lord Daniel Brennan, has presided over this new initiative.

The drafting team has proposed a “community compact” to be signed by individuals as a pledge of their good faith and goodwill in respectful engagement with other signatories and their community networks.

A copy of the proposed community compact has been forwarded to Pope Francis and the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani for their information.

I attach here for you a copy of that proposed community compact. Please do send me your thoughts and advice on how this initiative could be successfully carried forward globally.