2021年,即進(jìn)入大封鎖時(shí)代第二年之際,美國(guó)正在努力解決倫理學(xué)家或許稱之為“配送困境”(Delivery Dilemma)的難題。
白領(lǐng)們紛紛逃離疫情、在家工作,而外出購(gòu)物和就餐可能帶來(lái)致命危險(xiǎn),企業(yè)的應(yīng)對(duì)顯示出它們的高度靈活和無(wú)所不能。經(jīng)濟(jì)中有很大一部分都轉(zhuǎn)向了電子商務(wù),或者加倍依賴電子商務(wù)。堂食餐廳開(kāi)始送外賣。大賣場(chǎng)雇傭了成千上萬(wàn)的分揀員和裝箱工。世界各地的工廠爭(zhēng)相加開(kāi)班次,生產(chǎn)健身自行車、拼圖游戲和寵物玩具,因?yàn)槿藗兺蝗灰庾R(shí)到自己是多么的需要這些產(chǎn)品。在超高效算法的管理下,牢固的全球物流基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施網(wǎng)絡(luò)為我們送來(lái)了想要的東西,緩沖了新冠疫情帶來(lái)的沖擊。
物流網(wǎng)的創(chuàng)造者和所有者獲得了豐厚的回報(bào)。過(guò)去12個(gè)月,聯(lián)邦快遞(FedEx)和塔吉特(Target)的股價(jià)已經(jīng)上漲逾一倍。主營(yíng)餐飲外賣的創(chuàng)業(yè)公司DoorDash于2020年12月上市,估值高達(dá)700億美元。從2020年3月到8月,亞馬遜(Amazon)的股價(jià)上漲了90%(不過(guò),科技股經(jīng)歷了動(dòng)蕩的春天后,亞馬遜的創(chuàng)始人及首席執(zhí)行官杰夫·貝佐斯在2021年4月的身價(jià)僅為1770億美元)。
但是那些負(fù)責(zé)把貨物送到我們家門口的人就沒(méi)有那么幸運(yùn)了。許多快遞運(yùn)送司機(jī)都是零工或者分包了又分包的分包商,工資微薄,沒(méi)有任何福利。倉(cāng)庫(kù)和裝配線工人的收入高于最低工資,卻難以維持生計(jì)——有些崗位的工作條件十分惡劣,每次上廁所的時(shí)間都要按分鐘計(jì)。而且,在這條供應(yīng)鏈上,工人們要么緊緊聚在一起工作,要么每天和數(shù)百名陌生人/顧客打照面,而每一次接觸都意味著增加了一次可能暴露在新冠病毒中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
芝加哥大學(xué)布斯商學(xué)院的商業(yè)倫理學(xué)教授約翰·保羅·羅勒特在自己的在線課堂上看到了“配送困境”的演示。他的MBA學(xué)生在看到了企業(yè)股東的財(cái)富與分揀員、貨車司機(jī)微薄的收入之間的“K形”差距后,感到震驚。雖然他們中的許多人渴望成為下一個(gè)貝佐斯(或至少為他工作),但這種差距讓他們大為震動(dòng)?!敖?jīng)濟(jì)引擎運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)良好,但引擎發(fā)出的聲音卻令人不安?!绷_勒特說(shuō),“這個(gè)體系并不是行不通,而是不公平?!?/p>
在資本主義經(jīng)濟(jì)中,我們接受甚至鼓勵(lì)財(cái)富差異;這是一個(gè)獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)創(chuàng)新、勤奮和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的體系。但是,當(dāng)首席執(zhí)行官和送貨員之間的收入差距過(guò)大時(shí),對(duì)企業(yè)的集體信任就會(huì)受到侵蝕。如果這種情況發(fā)生,企業(yè)或?qū)⒊袚?dān)后果。
我們?cè)凇敦?cái)富》雜志的部分工作就是分析和診斷此類機(jī)械問(wèn)題,指出哪里需要維修。因此,不妨把這類問(wèn)題——我們第一次幾乎完全聚焦于“問(wèn)責(zé)”的主題——想象成去了一趟修車廠。在當(dāng)今商界,“檢查引擎”的燈顯然亮起來(lái)了。但只是油箱門出了問(wèn)題還是發(fā)動(dòng)機(jī)的密封圈漏氣了?我們得把車起到架子上看一看。
媒體已經(jīng)有多篇文章都探討了企業(yè)失衡的故事,探討了這些情況對(duì)未來(lái)發(fā)展道路提出的復(fù)雜問(wèn)題。我們應(yīng)當(dāng)如何修復(fù)一個(gè)被不當(dāng)激勵(lì)主導(dǎo)的醫(yī)療保健體系?當(dāng)一家公司言行不一時(shí)會(huì)發(fā)生什么?當(dāng)媒體以造成社會(huì)危害的方式為謊言提供助力時(shí),誰(shuí)來(lái)承擔(dān)責(zé)任?當(dāng)然,配送困境也存在失衡:企業(yè)為了競(jìng)相滿足消費(fèi)者的欲望,將大量工人困在了電子商務(wù)的底層。
商業(yè)擁有無(wú)與倫比的創(chuàng)造財(cái)富和解決問(wèn)題的力量。在這個(gè)疫情肆虐的時(shí)刻,許多人的經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況都十分脆弱,企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人應(yīng)該讓問(wèn)責(zé)照亮前路,追求更公平的結(jié)果,讓每一個(gè)利益攸關(guān)方都感受到自己對(duì)企業(yè)的發(fā)展方向擁有發(fā)言權(quán)。
企業(yè)現(xiàn)在更迫切需要自我反省,因?yàn)橛媚承?biāo)準(zhǔn)衡量,企業(yè)已經(jīng)成為這個(gè)不穩(wěn)定社會(huì)中最值得信賴的支柱。一些公司紛紛提高工資,避免員工在新冠疫情中失業(yè);在喬治·弗洛伊德遇害后,還有一些公司將投資轉(zhuǎn)移到黑人社區(qū),有意識(shí)地支持種族平等。制藥企業(yè)以創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的速度兌現(xiàn)了開(kāi)發(fā)新冠肺炎疫苗的承諾。當(dāng)現(xiàn)任總統(tǒng)威脅憲法秩序時(shí),私營(yíng)部門集體站出來(lái)維護(hù)秩序。廣受關(guān)注的愛(ài)德曼信任度晴雨表(Edelman Trust Barometer,調(diào)查公眾對(duì)機(jī)構(gòu)的態(tài)度)顯示,2020年全球?qū)ζ髽I(yè)的信任度達(dá)到了十多年來(lái)的最高水平,與政府、媒體和非政府組織之間的差距再次拉大。
甚至許多受到金融危機(jī)重創(chuàng)的1980年后出生的人也更信任企業(yè)?!癥世代并不認(rèn)為政府在解決社會(huì)問(wèn)題方面特別有效?!敝ゼ痈绱髮W(xué)布斯商學(xué)院的戰(zhàn)略管理學(xué)教授克里斯蒂娜·哈奇基安表示:“他們對(duì)商業(yè)和市場(chǎng)的作用更感興趣?!彼€曾經(jīng)于2012年至2020年期間任該校Rustandy社會(huì)部門創(chuàng)新中心(Rustandy Center for Social Sector Innovation)的執(zhí)行主任。
可以肯定的是,年輕員工并沒(méi)有盲目相信公司;許多人仍然對(duì)企業(yè)的動(dòng)機(jī)深表懷疑。(這不僅僅是一代人的問(wèn)題:大多數(shù)人可能信任的是自己的雇主,而不是整個(gè)商界。)但年輕員工也大大改變了企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者面臨的期望值。愛(ài)德曼信任度晴雨表背后公關(guān)公司的首席執(zhí)行官理查德·愛(ài)德曼列舉了一系列千禧一代員工現(xiàn)在經(jīng)常敦促公司首席執(zhí)行官采取行動(dòng)的領(lǐng)域:性別和種族平等、綠色供應(yīng)鏈、培訓(xùn)和技能提升。最重要的是,年輕員工希望他們的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)就社會(huì)問(wèn)題發(fā)表意見(jiàn):“公司員工會(huì)認(rèn)為,如果你不對(duì)某個(gè)問(wèn)題發(fā)表意見(jiàn),你就是同謀。”愛(ài)德曼說(shuō)。
在當(dāng)前的政治環(huán)境中,員工和消費(fèi)者或許比政府更能夠?qū)ζ髽I(yè)問(wèn)責(zé)??偟膩?lái)說(shuō),法律很難跟上創(chuàng)新和技術(shù)變革的步伐:社交媒體內(nèi)容主要由制定于25年前的《通信規(guī)范法》(Communication Decency Act)監(jiān)管,就充分說(shuō)明了這一點(diǎn)?!锻ㄐ乓?guī)范法》開(kāi)始立法時(shí),還在撥號(hào)上網(wǎng)。而美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)中嚴(yán)重的黨派分歧又導(dǎo)致短期內(nèi)不太可能進(jìn)行重大商業(yè)改革。
在政府能力缺失的情況下,企業(yè)界能夠進(jìn)行自我監(jiān)督嗎?紐約大學(xué)(New York University)的哲學(xué)和法學(xué)教授夸梅·安東尼·阿皮亞說(shuō),在一定范圍內(nèi),這個(gè)結(jié)果可以實(shí)現(xiàn),阿皮亞還是《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》(New York Times)“倫理學(xué)家”(Ethicist)專欄的作者?!笆紫瘓?zhí)行官們和董事們有理由說(shuō):‘因?yàn)槲覀兪潜绢I(lǐng)域的專家,所以永遠(yuǎn)比其他任何人都更了解我們會(huì)帶來(lái)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)?!彼a(bǔ)充說(shuō),商界領(lǐng)袖之間的同輩壓力具有強(qiáng)大的規(guī)范力。
但是當(dāng)然了,自我監(jiān)管是最終極的平衡之道,意味著只有當(dāng)企業(yè)將其他利益相關(guān)者考慮在內(nèi)時(shí),才可以真正起作用。一個(gè)人趕路,更有可能走錯(cuò)。從今天的混亂中脫穎而出的公司之所以能夠脫穎而出,是因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)跊Q策桌上為公司總部所在地的市長(zhǎng)和對(duì)沖基金的股東們留出了空間;為倡導(dǎo)包容的活動(dòng)家、環(huán)保理想主義者,以及鋒芒銳利的戰(zhàn)略家留出了空間;沒(méi)錯(cuò),也給送貨司機(jī)和公司董事留出了空間。如果每一方都提高了對(duì)彼此和對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的要求,由此產(chǎn)生的問(wèn)責(zé)就將確保商業(yè)引擎維持正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:Agatha
2021年,即進(jìn)入大封鎖時(shí)代第二年之際,美國(guó)正在努力解決倫理學(xué)家或許稱之為“配送困境”(Delivery Dilemma)的難題。
白領(lǐng)們紛紛逃離疫情、在家工作,而外出購(gòu)物和就餐可能帶來(lái)致命危險(xiǎn),企業(yè)的應(yīng)對(duì)顯示出它們的高度靈活和無(wú)所不能。經(jīng)濟(jì)中有很大一部分都轉(zhuǎn)向了電子商務(wù),或者加倍依賴電子商務(wù)。堂食餐廳開(kāi)始送外賣。大賣場(chǎng)雇傭了成千上萬(wàn)的分揀員和裝箱工。世界各地的工廠爭(zhēng)相加開(kāi)班次,生產(chǎn)健身自行車、拼圖游戲和寵物玩具,因?yàn)槿藗兺蝗灰庾R(shí)到自己是多么的需要這些產(chǎn)品。在超高效算法的管理下,牢固的全球物流基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施網(wǎng)絡(luò)為我們送來(lái)了想要的東西,緩沖了新冠疫情帶來(lái)的沖擊。
物流網(wǎng)的創(chuàng)造者和所有者獲得了豐厚的回報(bào)。過(guò)去12個(gè)月,聯(lián)邦快遞(FedEx)和塔吉特(Target)的股價(jià)已經(jīng)上漲逾一倍。主營(yíng)餐飲外賣的創(chuàng)業(yè)公司DoorDash于2020年12月上市,估值高達(dá)700億美元。從2020年3月到8月,亞馬遜(Amazon)的股價(jià)上漲了90%(不過(guò),科技股經(jīng)歷了動(dòng)蕩的春天后,亞馬遜的創(chuàng)始人及首席執(zhí)行官杰夫·貝佐斯在2021年4月的身價(jià)僅為1770億美元)。
但是那些負(fù)責(zé)把貨物送到我們家門口的人就沒(méi)有那么幸運(yùn)了。許多快遞運(yùn)送司機(jī)都是零工或者分包了又分包的分包商,工資微薄,沒(méi)有任何福利。倉(cāng)庫(kù)和裝配線工人的收入高于最低工資,卻難以維持生計(jì)——有些崗位的工作條件十分惡劣,每次上廁所的時(shí)間都要按分鐘計(jì)。而且,在這條供應(yīng)鏈上,工人們要么緊緊聚在一起工作,要么每天和數(shù)百名陌生人/顧客打照面,而每一次接觸都意味著增加了一次可能暴露在新冠病毒中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
芝加哥大學(xué)布斯商學(xué)院的商業(yè)倫理學(xué)教授約翰·保羅·羅勒特在自己的在線課堂上看到了“配送困境”的演示。他的MBA學(xué)生在看到了企業(yè)股東的財(cái)富與分揀員、貨車司機(jī)微薄的收入之間的“K形”差距后,感到震驚。雖然他們中的許多人渴望成為下一個(gè)貝佐斯(或至少為他工作),但這種差距讓他們大為震動(dòng)?!敖?jīng)濟(jì)引擎運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)良好,但引擎發(fā)出的聲音卻令人不安?!绷_勒特說(shuō),“這個(gè)體系并不是行不通,而是不公平。”
在資本主義經(jīng)濟(jì)中,我們接受甚至鼓勵(lì)財(cái)富差異;這是一個(gè)獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)創(chuàng)新、勤奮和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的體系。但是,當(dāng)首席執(zhí)行官和送貨員之間的收入差距過(guò)大時(shí),對(duì)企業(yè)的集體信任就會(huì)受到侵蝕。如果這種情況發(fā)生,企業(yè)或?qū)⒊袚?dān)后果。
我們?cè)凇敦?cái)富》雜志的部分工作就是分析和診斷此類機(jī)械問(wèn)題,指出哪里需要維修。因此,不妨把這類問(wèn)題——我們第一次幾乎完全聚焦于“問(wèn)責(zé)”的主題——想象成去了一趟修車廠。在當(dāng)今商界,“檢查引擎”的燈顯然亮起來(lái)了。但只是油箱門出了問(wèn)題還是發(fā)動(dòng)機(jī)的密封圈漏氣了?我們得把車起到架子上看一看。
媒體已經(jīng)有多篇文章都探討了企業(yè)失衡的故事,探討了這些情況對(duì)未來(lái)發(fā)展道路提出的復(fù)雜問(wèn)題。我們應(yīng)當(dāng)如何修復(fù)一個(gè)被不當(dāng)激勵(lì)主導(dǎo)的醫(yī)療保健體系?當(dāng)一家公司言行不一時(shí)會(huì)發(fā)生什么?當(dāng)媒體以造成社會(huì)危害的方式為謊言提供助力時(shí),誰(shuí)來(lái)承擔(dān)責(zé)任?當(dāng)然,配送困境也存在失衡:企業(yè)為了競(jìng)相滿足消費(fèi)者的欲望,將大量工人困在了電子商務(wù)的底層。
商業(yè)擁有無(wú)與倫比的創(chuàng)造財(cái)富和解決問(wèn)題的力量。在這個(gè)疫情肆虐的時(shí)刻,許多人的經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況都十分脆弱,企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人應(yīng)該讓問(wèn)責(zé)照亮前路,追求更公平的結(jié)果,讓每一個(gè)利益攸關(guān)方都感受到自己對(duì)企業(yè)的發(fā)展方向擁有發(fā)言權(quán)。
企業(yè)現(xiàn)在更迫切需要自我反省,因?yàn)橛媚承?biāo)準(zhǔn)衡量,企業(yè)已經(jīng)成為這個(gè)不穩(wěn)定社會(huì)中最值得信賴的支柱。一些公司紛紛提高工資,避免員工在新冠疫情中失業(yè);在喬治·弗洛伊德遇害后,還有一些公司將投資轉(zhuǎn)移到黑人社區(qū),有意識(shí)地支持種族平等。制藥企業(yè)以創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的速度兌現(xiàn)了開(kāi)發(fā)新冠肺炎疫苗的承諾。當(dāng)現(xiàn)任總統(tǒng)威脅憲法秩序時(shí),私營(yíng)部門集體站出來(lái)維護(hù)秩序。廣受關(guān)注的愛(ài)德曼信任度晴雨表(Edelman Trust Barometer,調(diào)查公眾對(duì)機(jī)構(gòu)的態(tài)度)顯示,2020年全球?qū)ζ髽I(yè)的信任度達(dá)到了十多年來(lái)的最高水平,與政府、媒體和非政府組織之間的差距再次拉大。
甚至許多受到金融危機(jī)重創(chuàng)的1980年后出生的人也更信任企業(yè)?!癥世代并不認(rèn)為政府在解決社會(huì)問(wèn)題方面特別有效?!敝ゼ痈绱髮W(xué)布斯商學(xué)院的戰(zhàn)略管理學(xué)教授克里斯蒂娜·哈奇基安表示:“他們對(duì)商業(yè)和市場(chǎng)的作用更感興趣?!彼€曾經(jīng)于2012年至2020年期間任該校Rustandy社會(huì)部門創(chuàng)新中心(Rustandy Center for Social Sector Innovation)的執(zhí)行主任。
可以肯定的是,年輕員工并沒(méi)有盲目相信公司;許多人仍然對(duì)企業(yè)的動(dòng)機(jī)深表懷疑。(這不僅僅是一代人的問(wèn)題:大多數(shù)人可能信任的是自己的雇主,而不是整個(gè)商界。)但年輕員工也大大改變了企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者面臨的期望值。愛(ài)德曼信任度晴雨表背后公關(guān)公司的首席執(zhí)行官理查德·愛(ài)德曼列舉了一系列千禧一代員工現(xiàn)在經(jīng)常敦促公司首席執(zhí)行官采取行動(dòng)的領(lǐng)域:性別和種族平等、綠色供應(yīng)鏈、培訓(xùn)和技能提升。最重要的是,年輕員工希望他們的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)就社會(huì)問(wèn)題發(fā)表意見(jiàn):“公司員工會(huì)認(rèn)為,如果你不對(duì)某個(gè)問(wèn)題發(fā)表意見(jiàn),你就是同謀?!睈?ài)德曼說(shuō)。
在當(dāng)前的政治環(huán)境中,員工和消費(fèi)者或許比政府更能夠?qū)ζ髽I(yè)問(wèn)責(zé)。總的來(lái)說(shuō),法律很難跟上創(chuàng)新和技術(shù)變革的步伐:社交媒體內(nèi)容主要由制定于25年前的《通信規(guī)范法》(Communication Decency Act)監(jiān)管,就充分說(shuō)明了這一點(diǎn)。《通信規(guī)范法》開(kāi)始立法時(shí),還在撥號(hào)上網(wǎng)。而美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)中嚴(yán)重的黨派分歧又導(dǎo)致短期內(nèi)不太可能進(jìn)行重大商業(yè)改革。
在政府能力缺失的情況下,企業(yè)界能夠進(jìn)行自我監(jiān)督嗎?紐約大學(xué)(New York University)的哲學(xué)和法學(xué)教授夸梅·安東尼·阿皮亞說(shuō),在一定范圍內(nèi),這個(gè)結(jié)果可以實(shí)現(xiàn),阿皮亞還是《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》(New York Times)“倫理學(xué)家”(Ethicist)專欄的作者?!笆紫瘓?zhí)行官們和董事們有理由說(shuō):‘因?yàn)槲覀兪潜绢I(lǐng)域的專家,所以永遠(yuǎn)比其他任何人都更了解我們會(huì)帶來(lái)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。’”他補(bǔ)充說(shuō),商界領(lǐng)袖之間的同輩壓力具有強(qiáng)大的規(guī)范力。
但是當(dāng)然了,自我監(jiān)管是最終極的平衡之道,意味著只有當(dāng)企業(yè)將其他利益相關(guān)者考慮在內(nèi)時(shí),才可以真正起作用。一個(gè)人趕路,更有可能走錯(cuò)。從今天的混亂中脫穎而出的公司之所以能夠脫穎而出,是因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)跊Q策桌上為公司總部所在地的市長(zhǎng)和對(duì)沖基金的股東們留出了空間;為倡導(dǎo)包容的活動(dòng)家、環(huán)保理想主義者,以及鋒芒銳利的戰(zhàn)略家留出了空間;沒(méi)錯(cuò),也給送貨司機(jī)和公司董事留出了空間。如果每一方都提高了對(duì)彼此和對(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的要求,由此產(chǎn)生的問(wèn)責(zé)就將確保商業(yè)引擎維持正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:Agatha
A few weeks into year two of the lockdown era, America is grappling with what an ethicist might call the Delivery Dilemma.
When white-collar knowledge workers fled from the pandemic to toil from home, and shopping and dining out became potentially mortal hazards, business’s response showed just how versatile and nimble it could be. Huge swaths of the economy pivoted to or doubled down on e-commerce. Sit-down restaurants converted to takeout. Big-box retailers hired hundreds of thousands of shelf-pickers and box-fillers. Factories worldwide scrambled to add shifts to make the exercise bikes, jigsaw puzzles, and pet toys that we suddenly realized we needed so much more of. A global steel-and-sinew web of logistics infrastructure, overseen by ultraefficient algorithms, delivered whatever we wanted, cushioning the blow of a planetwide crisis.
The creators and owners of that web reaped rich rewards. Shares in FedEx and Target have more than doubled over the past 12 months. Food-schlepping startup DoorDash went public in December and hit valuations as high as $70 billion. Between March and August of 2020, Amazon’s stock rose by 90% (though, after a rocky spring for tech stocks, founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is now worth only $177 billion).
But the people who actually got the goods to our doorsteps haven’t fared as well. Many delivery drivers are gig-economy workers or sub-sub-subcontractors, earning modest pay with no benefits. Warehouse and assembly-line jobs pay better than minimum wage, but seldom a living wage—sometimes earned under harsh conditions where every bathroom break is timed to the minute. And all along the supply chain, workers either labor in close quarters with one another or encounter hundreds of strangers-slash-customers a day, with each interaction representing another potential exposure to COVID.
John Paul Rollert, a professor who teaches business ethics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, watched the Delivery Dilemma play out from his virtual classroom, where his MBA students recoiled at the K-shaped divergence of the shareholders’ fortunes and the precarious incomes of the shelf-pickers and van drivers. And while many of them aspire to be (or at least work for) the next Bezos, the disparity shook them. “The engine of the economy is humming fine, but the sound of the engine is disconcerting,” Rollert says. “It’s not that the system doesn’t work, it’s that the system isn’t fair.”
In a capitalist economy, we accept and even encourage disparity of wealth; it’s inextricable from a system that rewards innovation, industriousness, and competitive drive. But when, say, the gulf between the CEO and the delivery driver grows too wide, collective trust erodes. And if that happens, business can suffer the consequences.
Part of our job at Fortune is to analyze and diagnose such mechanical problems and to point out needed repairs. So think of the problems—our first to focus almost exclusively on the theme of “accountability”—as a visit to the garage. Across the business world right now, the “check engine” light is definitely on. But is it just a faulty gas cap or are we about to blow a gasket? Let’s put the truck up on the rack and take a look.
Many of the articles in media explore examples of business getting out of balance—and the complicated questions those situations raise about the way ahead. How do we fix a health care system that has become dominated by perverse incentives? What happens when a company’s actions don’t match its rhetoric? And who bears responsibility when a media company gives oxygen to falsehoods in socially destructive ways? The Delivery Dilemma, of course, poses its own questions about balance, as the race to satisfy consumer desires traps many workers in an e-commerce underclass.
Business has an unparalleled power to create wealth and solve problems. At this pandemic-scarred moment, when so many people are economically vulnerable, business leaders should let accountability light the way to more equitable results, and make every stakeholder feel like they have a say in where we’re headed.
*****
Corporate soul-searching is all the more urgent right now because, by some measures, business has become the most trustworthy pillar of a wobbly society. Individual companies stepped up to raise pay and shield employees from layoffs in the pandemic; others shifted investment capital to Black communities and meaningfully embraced racial equity after George Floyd’s killing. Drugmakers delivered on their promise to develop COVID-19 vaccines, in record time. And the private sector collectively stood up for the constitutional order when a sitting President threatened it. Not coincidentally, the Edelman Trust Barometer, a widely watched survey of public attitudes toward institutions, showed global trust in business in 2020 at highs it hadn’t reached in more than a decade, with a widening lead over government, media, and NGOs.
That greater trust in business holds true even for many people born after 1980—generations scarred by the debacle of the financial crisis. “Gen Y doesn’t see government as particularly effective at solving social problems,” says Christina Hachikian, a strategic management professor at Chicago’s Booth School and the executive director, from 2012 to 2020, of its Rustandy Center for Social Sector Innovation. “They have a greater interest in using business and the market.”
To be sure, younger workers haven’t drunk the corporate Kool-Aid; many remain deeply mistrustful of business’s motives. (That’s not just generational: Most people are more likely to trust their own employers than to trust the business community in general.) But younger workers have also dramatically reshaped the expectations that corporate leaders face. Richard Edelman, CEO of the communications firm behind the barometer, runs down a list of areas where millennial employees now routinely urge their CEOs to act: Gender and racial equity. Greener supply chains. Retraining and upskilling. Above all, younger employees want their leaders to speak out on social problems: “Your own people think you’re complicit in whatever it is you don’t talk about,” he says.
In the current political climate, employees and consumers may be better positioned than government is to hold corporations accountable. In general, the law struggles to keep pace with innovation and technological change: The fact that social media content is governed by the 25-year-old Communications Decency Act—legislation dating from the heyday of the dial-up modem—speaks volumes on that front. And the hair’s-breadth partisan split in Congress makes major business reform unlikely in the near term.
In the absence of highly capable government, can business be trusted to police itself? Within certain limits that’s a desirable outcome, says Kwame Anthony Appiah, professor of philosophy and law at New York University who pulls double duty as the New York Times’ “Ethicist” columnist. “It’s reasonable of CEOs and boards to say, ‘Because we are the experts on what we are doing, we’re always going to know more about the risks we pose than anybody else.’?” Peer pressure among business leaders, he adds, can be a powerful normative force.
But self-policing, of course, is the ultimate balancing act—which means it can only truly work when a business takes other stakeholders into account. Go it alone, and you’re far more likely to go wrong. The companies that emerge strongest from today’s tumult will do so because they made room at the decision-making table for their headquarters-city mayors as well as their hedge fund shareholders; for inclusion activists and environmental idealists as well as sharp-edged strategists; and, yes, for delivery drivers as well as corporate directors. If all those parties raise the bar for one another and for leaders, the resulting accountability could keep the engine of business in tune.