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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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