There are huge reputational gains to be made for Labour
There are no doubt a number of reasons for the Labour Party’s defeat in the general election in May 2015, but one major theme has been the idea that Labour could not be trusted with the economy.
Everyone knows that Labour urgently needs to figure out its business strategy to rescue it from even more years of fighting from the sidelines while the Conservative government presses ahead with its ideology in full force.
There is an important point to take away from this though – many people from all parts of society, whether rich or poor, believe that the Conservatives know business.
To much of the electorate, the Tories are clearly a trusted pair of hands in all matters economic; a political party that does not waste money, that helps businesses compete more, that makes businesses more efficient by cutting red tape and that looks to reward hard work.
I do not wish to dwell on an assessment of whether this is correct, although for the record I believe the Tories’ reputation is not deserved. Mainly this is due to their complete failure to make long term investments in vital areas such as early years’ education and mental health care, both of which have the potential for huge economic ramifications – positive ones if they get it right.
Similarly, the Tories’ desperate attempt to reduce the state on a foundation of ideology over sense does not make long term economic sense.
Now though, the Labour Party should embrace the concept of business. It should show voters that Labour values the role of business in society. This can be done in a variety of contexts, but Labour must pick its battles one step at a time.
Today, one of Labour’s major battles is that human rights is fighting a reputation crisis. With various major newspapers ripping the concept of human rights to pieces, many are unimpressed with what they understand human rights to represent.
I have suspicions that the Conservative Party’s proposal to change human rights law in the UK is mainly to trick the public rather than to actually change anything. Specifically, it wishes the public to think it is doing something to address what many believe are overly generous laws being abused by prisoners and terrorists.
Let us then use the business argument to shatter this nonsense. Thankfully today many organisations, both public and private, will often not work with others unless certain conditions of human decency are met. Why is this relevant? What this means is that embracing human rights in the way you do business can give an organisation the competitive advantage.
By being more ethical and respectful of human life, business can grow or at least help itself beat those competitors that give humanity less courtesy. There are huge reputational gains to be made, which will lead to growth, a point which organisations and institutions like The Business and Human Rights Resources Centre and the United Nations are keen to emphasise.
In short, human rights can be good for business.
What does this have to do with Labour? It gives Labour the opportunity to plant two trees with one seed – help to improve the reputation of human rights (a core fundamental of what the Labour Party stands for), while promoting the future of good ethical business.
Human rights can impact business in a number of ways such as fostering non-discrimination based on age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, sex, race, nationality and religion, or the abuse of the public’s privacy and data.
However, sometimes the abuses that need remedying are hidden. For those companies that operate abroad or rely on foreign supply chains we have to look harder to uncover injustices like environmental damage, forced labour and slavery, child labour, degrading treatment of workers and the stealing of people’s land.
Labour may have an opportunity here to change the world, boost profits and win votes at the same time.
Tom McNeil is the director of the Human Rights Act Campaign at Labour Campaign for Human Rights
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
4 Responses to “Comment: Why Labour must promote ethical business”
Jacko
Let’s face it -the Left hates business. And it hates business people. Especially successful ones. You only have to read the readers’ comments on this site. Business leaders are ‘evil’ or ‘greedy’ or ‘fat cats’ that ‘don’t pay they fair share’ and are successful only through ‘exploiting workers’.
But there’s a wider reason for this. It’s because the Left’s ideology depends on keeping people in controllable, homogeneous groups. Rich vs Poor, Us vs Them, Workers vs Bosses. Let’s take an example. Just the other day there was article on LFF about the BBC, where it was claimed that the reason that an update is given on the FTSE each day on the news is because the media is controlled by a ‘right wing narrative’. There’s a very clear implication: ‘ordinary’ people (as the Left loves to call us) shouldn’t concern themselves with financial markets. Only greedy, evil, right wing bastards should be interested in that sort of thing. The rest of us should all be teachers, or social workers, or nurses or charity workers on £27K. Know your place, stay in your class box, live with the results of our thinking. It’s totally incompatible with the mindset necessary to drive a successful business.
The reason that Blair managed to woo business and become electatable is that the managed to purge the Labour party of the awful, dreary 1970s mindest I’ve just described. Now, it’s come back. In spades.
Tom McNeil
Millions of Labour Party voters work for and/or run businesses. Many Labour MPs have worked in business in the past or spend their time promoting good sustainable business. Many left wing people respect the role of business when it’s not built on a model of exploitation. At the same time, to pretend there are no problem areas in the business world associated with greed and corruption, would be to willingly close one’s eyes to the truth. The comment above does not represent the Labour members, voters and supporters that I know.
NHSGP
. Mainly this is due to their complete failure to make long term investments in vital areas such as early years’ education and mental health care,
=================
See that just shows your incompetence, proving the point that Labour doesn’t get finance.
What you are describing is spending, not investment, unless you can state the cuts that you will make as a result.
An investment has to produce a return. That’s either an income, or a cost saving [which is a cut]. That income or saving has to be larger than the cost of the money borrowed to to fund the investment.
For example, Boris bikes are not an investment. They cost £28,000 a bike on the road cost. The income from renting them out will never cover the debt cost. It’s a liability, that costs lots of money, and causes cuts elsewhere.
=================
On Jacko’s comment.
The problem is clearly stated. Labour’s whole agenda is that you can get what you want by doing over other people. The problem is that sometimes its buggin’s turn, and he does you over. Labour needs to lose its class warfare ideology completely. Heaven forbid that you get a Tory equivalent of Trump, who really decides its Buggin’s turn and has a class warfare agenda. You’d be screwed.
Tom McNeil
Spending on excellent services (particularly where there are problems arising from a lack of spending that cost society more in both the short and long term) provides a return of social value, which has both social benefits that make society better as well as hard economic gains. Good public expenditure is most definitely an investment. Merely stating an example of public expenditure that you feel is poor value for money does not support your argument, it serves only as a case study for how you feel money should have been better spent. In any event, only referring to the monetary value does not tell the whole picture; you didn’t even mention the potential for environmental benefits which are relevant economic measures.