Posts tagged ‘Liberal Democrats’

Corporate Responsibility is the thread that runs through Coalition Agreement – but there’s more work to do…

May 23rd, 2010

The Coalition Agreement: our programme for governmentIn a posting on his personal website Andrew Dakers looks at the Coalition Agreement from a Corporate Responsibility perspective.  Whilst it has much to be commended, he concludes that unfortunately for a Coalition that wants to roll back the state and repeal legislation there is no reference to Responsibility Deals (voluntary agreements) in the Coalition Agreement. He says, “We can only hope the Coalition Agreement commitment to ‘investigate further ways of improving corporate accountability and transparency’ (pg 10) provides the window of opportunity for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to start thinking more creatively in this area under the leadership of Secretary of State Vince Cable MP.”

He particularly highlights the Conservative-commissioned Public health Responsibility Deal report ‘We’re all in this together’ (2009) that acknowledged business concerns about competition law constraints: “One of the problems of encouraging co-operation among businesses to achieve social goals is the approach taken by the competition authorities to any evidence or suggestion of cartels or collusion. What business requires is a clear steer from Government that co-operation to address health issues can take place in a carefully regulated forum. Recommendation 6.4: Government attention must be given to competition issues that arise from actual and potential industry voluntary agreements. Where businesses can work together to deliver health improvements, Government should find a way of providing a safe haven for companies to discuss solutions that would otherwise risk contravening competition law.” (pg 19)  This approach already exists and operates successfully in the Australian competition law framework.

Andrew said at the Liberal Democrats conference in Autumn 2009: “Sure sometimes there is going to be collusive behaviour that drives excessive profiteering and is against the interests of the consumer. This abuse of market power must be cracked down on hard. However there are also great business leaders and companies – even in the finance sector – who would encourage their peers to take more voluntary action on environmental, social and corporate governance issues if they had the tools in competition law. This is particularly necessary when government is one step behind public opinion and scientific evidence – or when government would be over-reaching itself by producing yet more legislation and enforcement bureaucracy. Or when achieving the vast changes in business practices required needs sector ownership of the problem…. Taking this balanced view, that doesn’t tarnish all business with the same brush, is so necessary if we are to shape a new era in capitalism.”

He concludes that reform of competition law that considers its interaction with voluntary agreements as a means of advancing responsible business practice is the gaping hole in the Coalition Agreement corporate responsibility measures – particularly when sometimes more responsible practices demand an increase in the cost of goods or services to the consumer.

Dakers speaks out on Competition Law reform at Liberal Democrat conference

September 23rd, 2009

In a speech to Liberal Democrat conference today, Andrew Dakers has urged the party to think afresh on competition law and the role it has to play in corporate responsibility.

He said:

“The paper [Are we being served?] forgets that in reality markets are not just about competition, but also cooperation between businesses. The negative social and environmental externalities that doing business can create will not be resolved by competition alone.

“For the past decade companies that take their responsibilities seriously have run scared of our current competition law framework. In the late 90s this lost both a mechanism for companies that wanted to collaborate on social & environmental issues through voluntary agreements to get these authorised by the OFT, as well as a public interest test. These mechanisms were vital when voluntary agreements involved internalising the external costs of a product and would potentially increase the price to the end consumer.

“The mess of current legislation is well illustrated by the ongoing OFT case regarding supermarkets. Blamed by the public for their low payments to dairy farmers, some supermarkets increased both their payments to farmers and the price to the end consumer. For this the OFT has fined them tens of millions.

“Sure sometimes there is going to be collusive behaviour that drives excessive profiteering and is against the interests of the consumer. This abuse of market power must be cracked down on hard. However there are also great business leaders and companies – even in the finance sector – who would encourage their peers to take more voluntary action on environmental, social and corporate governance issues if they had the tools in competition law. This is particularly necessary when government is one step behind public opinion and scientific evidence – or when government would be over-reaching itself by producing yet more legislation and enforcement bureaucracy. Or when achieving the vast changes in business practices required needs sector ownership of the problem…

“Taking this balanced view, that doesn’t tarnish all business with the same brush, is so necessary if we are to shape a new era in capitalism.

“All of these issues could and should be addressed by this working group. As a party we must produce policy that recognises we’re all in it together: employer, owner, employee and consumer.”