Presentation on theme: "Trust in the market discourse – what is trust in business relations between democracies and non- democracies?"— Presentation transcript:
Trust in the market discourse – what is trust in business relations between democracies and non- democracies?
Are the possibilities, freedom and rights of democracies, and the fundament of marked liberalism, a result of the lack of freedom, possibilities and rights of people in non- democracies?
Two state owned companies – Kongsberg Gruppen and Statoil Ethical and moral challenges related to how trust is understood and practiced in the market discourse, in business relations between state owned companies from democracies and non- democracies What is the role of the government? What expectations do the society have to the government in such relations? How does the government define risk in relation with non-democracies?
Two national levels of challenge Ehical – because relations to non-democracies challenge the ethical-political framework of democracies (Habermas 1996) Moral – because the development of practices in the market are legitimized by the ethical- political framework and refers to what is seen as legitimate practices
What defines trustworthy actions and practices? The market discourse understood as an open arena for transactions, based on liberal and democratic values An arena where profit is a legal goal, and an legitimate argument for legalizing actions and practices done in the market discourse Has an ethical-political frame that mirrors the interests of the participating nations, and their national ethical-political frames
What defines trustworthy actions and practices? Consensus as a premise for trust? The social contract of Rawls (2003, 1999) Justice as Fairness Society as a system of cooperation Where the goal is stability and the way towards it is overlapping consensus The concept of justice – every participant in the contract is seen as a free and equal individual, and should be treated justly – A system that prevents the fundamental freedom of each individual – The freedom of opinion, speech and equal possibilities – The principle of fair oportunities – realizing the oportunities should benefit the weakest members of the society Three levels of justice – Local principles of justice – National principles of justice – Global principles of justice
Two cases – always in search for new markets… Kongsberg Gruppen – investments in China, India, Middle East etc. Statoil – investments Azerbaijan, Middle East, Alberta, Canada etc. Both companies has defined a set of commitments that especially stress the importance of acting in line with the Human Rights Declaration KG writes in their Report on Corporate Social Responsibility (2011) that every action in the company are done in consensus with the Human Rights KG also makes a very clear point on how the company are responsible citizens in the national and international society – they are comitting to the governmental restrictions on CSR, and saying that every transaction done by the KG in the international market is verified and certified by the Department of Foreign Affairs
Kongsberg Gruppen The problem is that the phrase about every choice of action or practice being in line with the Human Rights, are reduced to only being a matter of internal affairs – it is all about how the company, internally, are following the Human Rights; especially the ILO-conventions as the freedom of organisation, against slavery, just payment, work-environmental issues etc. Also the UN Convention on Childrens Rights are given big attention – when it comes to internal affairs
Some critical points 1. A critical consequence of producing, selling and using weapons made for war is killing someone – directly or indirectly 2. State owned companies that produce weapons for war is a moral challenge, because the official Norwegian attitude is a “peace-nation” working towards peace – Norway indirectly supports war 3. Weapons and war often leads to actions that challenge or brake the human rights declaration. 4. It is a moral challenge that KG means their actions never compromise or brake the Human Rights
Some critical points 1. Statoils actions in Alberta, Canada are legal, but compromises the premises for trustworthy practice defined by the norwegian government 2. The case of Alberta challenges and brakes the Human Rights and the ILO-convention (169) on the rights of natives 3. The actions in Nigeria is not in consensus with the Human Rights
What is stability? What is justice? What is freedom? Are the premises of the Norwegian government relative?