p. 297 Always remember, said Zedillo, that behind all this technology is a political infrastructure that enables it to play out. “There have been a series of concrete political decisions, taken over the last fifty years, that put the world where it is right now,” he said. “Therefore, there are political decisions that could screw up the whole process too.”
As the saying goes: If you want to live like a Republican, vote like a Democrat—take good care of the losers and left-behinds. The only way to be a flatist is to be a compassionate flatist.
Social Activism
One new area that is going to need sorting out is the relationship between global corporations and their own moral consciences. Some may laugh at the notion that a global corporation even has a moral conscience, or should ever be expected to develop one. But some do and others are going to have to develop one, for one simple reason: In the flat world, with lengthy global supply chains, the balance of power between global companies and the individual communities in which they operate is tilting more and more in favor of the companies, many of them American-based. As such, these companies are going to command more power, not only to create value but also to transmit values, than any transnational institutions on the planet. Social and environmental activists and progressive companies can now collaborate in ways that can make both the companies more profitable and the flat earth more livable. Compassionate flatism very much seeks to promote this type of collaboration.
Let me illustrate this notion with a couple of examples. If you think about the forces that are gobbling up biodiversity around the planet, none are more powerful than farmers. It is not that they are intending to be harmful, it is just in the nature of what they do. So how and where people farm and fish really matter to whether we preserve natural habitats and species. Conservation International, one of the biggest environmental NGOs in the world, has as its main mission preserving p. 298 biodiversity. It is also a big believer in trying, when possible, to collaborate with big business, because when you bring a major global player around, it can have a huge impact on the environment. In 2002, McDonald’s and Conservation International forged a partnership to use the McDonald’s global supply chain—a behemoth that sucks beef, fish, chicken, pork, bread, lettuce, pickles, tomatoes, and potatoes from all four corners of the flat world—to produce not just value but also different values about the environment. “We and McDonald’s looked at a set of environmental issues and said, ‘Here are the things the food suppliers could do to reduce the environmental impact at little or no cost,’ ” explained Glenn Prickett, senior vice president of Conservation International.
McDonald’s then met with its key suppliers and worked out, with them and with CI, a set of guidelines for what McDonald’s calls “socially responsible food supply.” “For conservationists the challenge is how do you get your arms around hundreds of millions of decisions and decision makers involved in agriculture and fisheries, who are not coordinated in any way except by the market,” said Prickett. “So what we look for are partners who can put their purchasing power behind a set of environmentally friendly practices in a way that is good for them, works for the producers, and is good for biodiversity. In that way, you can start to capture so many more decision makers . . . There is no global government authority to protect biodiversity. You have to collaborate with the players who can make a difference, and one of them is McDonald’s.”
Conservation International is already seeing improvements in conservation of water, energy, and waste, as well as steps to encourage better management of fisheries, among McDonald’s suppliers. But it is still early, and one will have to assess over a period of years, with comprehensive data collection, whether this is really having a positive impact on the environment, This form of collaboration cannot and should never be a substitute for government rules and oversight. But if it works, it can be a vehicle for actually getting government rules implemented. Environmentalists who prefer government regulation to these more collaborative efforts often ignore the fact that strong rules imposed against the will of farmers end up being weakly enforced—or not enforced at all.
p. 299 What is in this for McDonald’s? It is a huge opportunity to improve its global brand by acting as a good global citizen. Yes, this is, at root, a business opportunity for McDonald’s. Sometimes the best way to change the world is by getting the big players to do the right things for the wrong reasons, because waiting for them to do the right things for the right reasons can mean waiting forever. Conservation International has struck similar supply-chain collaborations with Starbucks, setting rules for its supply chain of coffee farmers, and Office Depot, with its supply chain of paper-product providers.
What these collaborations do is start to “break down the walls between different interest groups,” said Prickett. Normally you would have the environmentalists on one side and the farmers on the other and each side trying to get the government to write the regulations in the way that would serve it. Government would end up writing the rules largely to benefit business. “Now, instead, we have a private entity saying, ‘We want to use our global supply chain to do some good,’ but we understand that to be effective it has to be a collaboration with the farmers and the environmentalists if it is going to have any impact,” Prickett said.
In this same vein, as a compassionate flatist, I would like to see a label on every electronics good state whether the supply chain that produced it is in compliance with the standards set down by the new HP-Dell-IBM alliance. In October 2004, these three giants joined forces in a collaborative effort with key members of their computer and printer supply chains to promote a unified code of socially responsible manufacturing practices across the world. The new Electronics Industry Code of Conduct includes bans on bribes, child labor, embezzlement and extortion, and violations of intellectual property, rules governing usage of wastewater, hazardous materials, pollutants, and regulations on the reporting of occupational injuries. Several major electronics manufacturers who serve the IBM, Dell, and HP supply chains collaborated on writing the code, including Celestica, Flextronics, Jabil, Sanmina-SCI, and Solectron.
All HP suppliers, for instance, will be required to follow the code, though there is flexibility in the timing of how they reach compliance. “We are completely prepared and have terminated relationships with p. 300 suppliers we find to be repeatedly nonresponsive,” said HP spokeswoman Monica Sarkar. As of October 2004, HP had assessed more than 150 of its 350 suppliers, including factories in China, Mexico, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe. It has set up a steering committee with IBM and Dell in order to figure out exactly how they collectively can review compliance and punish consistent violators. Compliance is everything, and so, again, it remains to be seen just how vigilant the corporations will be with their suppliers. Nevertheless, this use of supply chains to create values—not just value—could be a wave of the future.
“As we have begun to look to other [offshore] suppliers to do most of our manufacturing, it has become clear to us that we have to assume some responsibility for how they do that work,” explained Debra Dunn, HP’s senior vice president of corporate affairs and global citizenship. First and foremost, that is what many of HP’s customers want. “Customers care,” said Dunn, “and European customers lead the way in caring. And human rights groups and NGOs, who are gaining increasing global influence as trust in corporations declines, are basically saying, ‘You guys have the power here. You are global companies, you can set expectations that will influence environmental practices and human rights practices in emerging markets.’ ”
Those voices are right, and what is more, they can use the Internet to great effect, if they want, to embarrass global corporations into compliance.
“When you have the procurement dollars that HP and McDonald’s have,” said Dunn, “people really want to do business with you, so you have leverage and are in a position to set standards and [therefore] you have a responsibility to set standards.” The role of global corporations in
setting standards in emerging markets is doubly important, because oftentimes local governments actually want to improve their environmental standards. They know it is important in the long run, but the pressure to create jobs and live within budget constraints is overwhelming and therefore the pressure to look the other way is overwhelming. Countries like China, noted Dunn, often actually want an outside force, like a global business coalition, to exert pressure to drive p. 301 new values and standards at home that they are too weak to impose on themselves and their own bureaucrats. In The Lexus and the Olive Tree I called this form of value creation “globalution,” or revolution from beyond.
Said Dunn: “We used to say that as long as we complied with the local law, that was all we could be expected to do. But now the imbalance of power is so huge it is not practical to say that Wal-Mart or HP can do whatever they want as long as a state government or country does not stop them. The leverage HP would leave on the table would be immoral given its superior power . . . We have the power to transmit global governance to our universe of suppliers and employees and consumers, which is a pretty broad universe.”
Dunn noted that in a country like China there is an intense competition by local companies to become part of the HP or Dell or Wal-Mart supply chain. Even though it is high pressure, it means a steady volume of considerable business—the kind that can make or break a company. As a result, HP has huge leverage over its Chinese suppliers, and they are actually very open to having their factory standards lifted, because they know that if they get up to the standards of HP they can leverage that to get business from Dell or Sony.
Advocates of compassionate flatism need to educate consumers to the fact that their buying decisions and buying power are political. Every time you as a consumer make a decision, you are supporting a whole set of values. You are voting about the barriers and friction you want to preserve or eliminate. Progressives need to make this information more easily available to consumers, so more of them can vote the right way and support the right kind of global corporate behavior.
Marc Gunther, a senior writer for Fortune magazine and the author of Faith and Fortune: The Quiet Revolution to Reform American Business, is one of the few business writers who have recognized how global corporations can be influenced by progressive politics. “To be sure,” wrote Gunther in an essay in The Washington Post (November 14, 2004), “there are plenty of scoundrels out there, indifferent to the rights and wrongs of corporate behavior. And some executives who talk of social isp. 302sues may be only mouthing the words. But the bottom line is that a growing number of companies have come to believe that moral values, broadly and liberally defined, can help drive shareholder values. And that is a case study from which everyone could learn.”
This progressive tilt of big business has not generated much press attention, Gunther noted. “Partly that’s because scandal stories are juicier. Mostly it’s because changes in corporate practices have been incremental—and because reporters tend to dismiss talk of corporate social responsibility as mere public relations. But chief executives of closely-watched firms like General Electric do not promise to become better global citizens unless they intend to follow through. ‘If you want to be a great company today,’ Jeff Immelt, GE’s CEO, likes to say, ‘you have to be a good company.’ When I asked him why GE has begun to talk more openly about corporate citizenship, he said: ‘The reason why people come to work for GE is that they want to be about something that is bigger than themselves.’ As Immelt suggests, the biggest driver of corporate reform is the desire of companies to attract people who seek meaning as well as money from their work. Few of us go to our jobs every day to enhance shareholder value. Younger people, especially, want to work for companies with a mission that goes beyond the bottom line.”
In sum, we are now in a huge transition as companies are coming to understand not only their power in a flat world but also their responsibilities. Compassionate flatists believe that this is no time to be sitting on one’s hands, thinking exclusively in traditional left-right, consumer-versus-company terms. Instead we should be thinking about how collaboration between consumers and companies can provide an enormous amount of protection against the worst features of the flattening of the world, without opting for classic protectionism.
“Compassionate capitalism. Think it sounds like an oxymoron? Think again,” said Gunther. “Even as America is supposedly turning conservative on social issues, big business is moving in the other direction.”
Parenting
p. 303 No discussion of compassionate flatism would be complete without also discussing the need for improved parenting. Helping individuals adapt to a flat world is not only the job of governments and companies. It is also the job of parents. They too need to know in what world their kids are growing up and what it will take for them to thrive. Put simply, we need a new generation of parents ready to administer tough love: There comes a time when you’ve got to put away the Game Boys, turn off the television set, put away the iPod, and get your kids down to work.
The sense of entitlement, the sense that because we once dominated global commerce and geopolitics—and Olympic basketball—we always will, the sense that delayed gratification is a punishment worse than a spanking, the sense that our kids have to be swaddled in cotton wool so that nothing bad or disappointing or stressful ever happens to them at school is, quite simply, a growing cancer on American society. And if we don’t start to reverse it, our kids are going to be in for a huge and socially disruptive shock from the flat world. While a different approach by politicians is necessary, it is not sufficient.
David Baltimore, the Nobel Prize-winning president of Caltech, knows what it takes to get your child ready to compete against the cream of the global crop. He told me that he is struck by the fact that almost all the students who make it to Caltech, one of the best scientific universities in the world, come from public schools, not from private schools that sometimes nurture a sense that just because you are there, you are special and entitled. “I look at the kids who come to Caltech, and they grew up in families that encouraged them to work hard and to put off a little bit of gratification for the future and to understand that they need to hone their skills to play an important role in the world,” Baltimore said. “I give parents enormous credit for this, because these kids are all coming from public schools that people are calling failures. Public education is producing these remarkable students—so it can be done. Their parents have nurtured them to make sure that they realize their potential. I think p. 304 we need a revolution in this country when it comes to parenting around education.”
Clearly, foreign-born parents seem to be doing this better. “About one-third of our students have an Asian background or are recent immigrants,” he said. A significant majority of the students coming to Caltech in the engineering disciplines are foreign-born, and a large fraction of its current faculty is foreign-born. “In biology, at the postdoc level, the dominance of Chinese students is overwhelming,” said Baltimore. No wonder that at the big scientific conferences today, a majority of the research papers dealing with cutting-edge bioscience have at least one Chinese name on them.
My friends Judy Estrin and Bill Carrico have started several networking companies in Silicon Valley. At one time, Judy was chief technology officer for Cisco. I sat with them one afternoon and talked about this problem. “When I was eleven years old,” said Bill, “I knew I was going to be an engineer. I dare you to find an eleven-year-old in America who wants to be an engineer today. We’ve turned down the ambition level.”
Added Judy, “More of the problem [can be solved by good] parenting than can be solved from a regulatory or funding move. Everyone wants to fund more of this and that, but where it starts is with the parents. Ambition comes from the parents. People have to get it. It will probably take a crisis [to get us refocused].”
In July 2004, comedian Bill Cosby used an appearance at Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition & Citizenship Education Fund’
s annual conference to upbraid African-Americans for not teaching their children proper grammar and for black kids not striving to learn more themselves. Cosby had already declared, “Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.” Referring to African-Americans who squandered their chances for a better life, Cosby told the Rainbow Coalition, “You’ve got to stop beating up your women because you can’t find a job, because you didn’t want to get an education and now you’re [earning] minimum wage. You should have thought more of yourself when you were in high school, when you had an opportunity.” p. 305 When Cosby’s remarks attracted a lot of criticism, Reverend Jackson defended him, arguing, “Bill is saying, let’s fight the right fight. Let’s level the playing field. Drunk people can’t do that. Illiterate people can’t do that.”
That is right. Americans are the ones who increasingly need to level the playing field—not by pulling others down, not by feeling sorry for ourselves, but by lifting ourselves up. But when it comes to how to do that, Cosby was saying something that is important for black and white Americans, rich and poor. Education, whether it comes from parents or schools, has to be about more than just cognitive skills. It also has to include character building. The fact is, parents and schools and cultures can and do shape people. The most important influence in my life, outside of my family, was my high school journalism teacher, Hattie M. Steinberg. She pounded the fundamentals of journalism into her students—not simply how to write a lead or accurately transcribe a quote but, more important, how to comport yourself in a professional way. She was nearing sixty at the time I had her as my teacher and high school newspaper adviser in the late 1960s. She was the polar opposite of “cool,” but we hung around her classroom like it was the malt shop and she was Wolfman Jack. None of us could have articulated it then, but it was because we enjoyed being harangued by her, disciplined by her, and taught by her. She was a woman of clarity and principles in an age of uncertainty. I sit up straight just thinking about her! Our children will increasingly be competing head-to-head with Chinese, Indian, and Asian kids, whose parents have a lot more of Hattie’s character-building approach than their own American parents. I am not suggesting that we militarize education, but I am suggesting that we do more to push our young people to go beyond their comfort zones, to do things right, and to be ready to suffer some short-run pain for longer gain.
The World Is Flat Page 35
