Can An Ethical Bank Support Guns And Fracking?
BY Herschel Smith10 years, 11 months ago
Harvard Business Review has a hypothetical case they have posed to readers. It begins this way.
As the founder and president of a new ethical bank focused on environmental sustainability, Jay McGuane realized that he and his board needed to set guidelines about which loans to approve and which to reject on “values” grounds. In his eagerness to start running the business, he’d put the issue off, but the bank was already confronting two problematic requests, one involving fracking and another concerning guns.
Without clear ethics rules, Jay worried that his already divided directors would fall into bitter squabbling, which could lead to resignations, negative media attention, and a flight of investors.
Take not of the silly way in which this supposed business case has been framed. Investors are scrambling. There is a veritable “flight” of investors, an analogue to the way investors are fleeing Cerberus-Freedom Group over the poor performance of gun investments over the past couple of years, I suppose.
It ends much the same way it began.
“Sure, they sell to the military,” Neitha said. “But you can buy the FF286 at gun shows. That’s what makes it one of Field Force’s most profitable products. Our bank’s mission is sustainability. How can we have a sustainable society where military-grade guns are being used to kill children? How can we, in good conscience, do business with that company?”
“It’s a no-brainer,” Clyde said. “Jay was talking about establishing guidelines for decisions. I’m all in favor of weighing the pros and cons—let’s do that when we discuss the shale gas loan. But when it comes to guns, there’s only one guideline we should follow.” He turned to Fred Keeler. “It’s like the Hippocratic Oath, right? First, do no harm. Or how about this: Do no evil.”
It was Fred who had advocated saying no to a loan if there was mere indication of harm, but now he looked confused. He loved his gun collection, from the flintlocks to the Uzis, as Jay well knew. Fred asked, of no one and everyone, “But what is ‘harm’? What is ‘evil’?”
I once worked for a manager whom I liked very much, and he worked extremely hard until his retirement, upon which he had planned to do what he had trained himself to do for years – sail. He and his wife, together, enjoying their golden years on the sea. Then a drunk teenage driver killed his wife just after his retirement. I was heartbroken for him, but of course not as heartbroken as he was.
Notice that the Harvard Business Review didn’t pose the “problem” of loans to purchase automobiles as the dilemma. Because apparently Harvard School of Business no longer teaches business. They teach goofy, worthless courses in political correctness and effete, urbanized progressivism.
On January 29, 2014 at 2:47 am, Nate said:
“Clyde” runs a “ethical bank”? The very idea is ridiculous!
On January 29, 2014 at 11:35 am, tkdkerry said:
Nate gets my nomination for Internets Win Of The Day.
On January 30, 2014 at 12:50 pm, Paul B said:
History is being trashed by a bunch of narcissistic baby boomers that are retiring with the original binky still firmly clenched between their teeth.
What bank is “ethical”?