Skip to main content

Duties, taxes, social dependency and corporate ethics


I am a bit reluctant to write about the ethics of tax avoidance by big multinational companies.  The issues are too topical and others have written or said much that needs saying. I didn't consider there was anything I could add significantly to the debate. But I was driving home a short while ago listening to a discussion on the radio. One expert from some think tank was discussing with a pundit from another think tank. The only duty a company has, he offered, was to its shareholders. And that was the end of the matter.  Legally that may be true; ethically it certainly is not!

Duty ethically relates not only to the set objectives, maximising profit and dividend, but to all incidental outcomes of actions taken to achieve that. Rather than considering maximum gain, a company to act ethically should consider optimum gain; that action which achieves the best balance between obligations to shareholders, to their workforce, to their customers and to the citizens of the communities in which they operate. In relation to the latter, tax avoidance is significant and unethical. From a duty view a set of criteria or imperatives should be applied to the actions taken regardless of outcome. Maximizing profit and dividend regardless of other obligations most often results in exploitation of poorly paid staff and avoidance of social obligations and short-term gain over long-term benefit.  Ends alone do not justify means other than from a narrow utilitarian perspective.

This is not simply a matter of 'fairness'; or simply that 'we all pay taxes and so should they', although 'fairness' is certainly part of the ethical balance.  It isn't simply 'like for like'  taxation. Taxation should reflect the impact of a company's actions on and the benefit they receive from society. A company that pays little or no tax nevertheless benefits from, for example,  the transport infrastructure; the roads and bridges, the trains and buses. It benefits from a cheaper labour force subsidised through the welfare system and from the education system and libraries; from waste disposal, from lighting in the streets; the list is long. They may pay local business tax; but most of these services are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer nationally. They have a duty ethically to contribute to that vast subsidy and we are right to be angry when they do not; that duty should also, in fairness, be made also a legal obligation. Companies do not operate free of dependency on society; in that sense they are all heavily subsidised, and more so if they avoid tax.

Listening to the radio discussion it struck me how central the concept of obligation to corporate shareholders was to the debate. I am no expert in UK corporate law; but law there is, spelling out these obligations. Ethics is certainly distinct from law; ethics is not a legal framework. It considers behaviour and choices in circumstances where choices can be made.  It thus considers behaviour in the light of intention and free will. It considers any conflict in moral or other imperatives relating to those choices. Corporations could choose to act unethically, or to restrict their consideration to their shareholders. We as consumers also make choices, from whom, when, where and how we purchase our goods or services. If the corporations are not willing to consider their actions beyond that of the dividends, then we must consider the ethics of our choices and act through parliament to ensure ethical standards in obligations to pay taxes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As