If business is one half of the solution to righting so many of the social and environmental wrongs of this world, then globalisation is the other half and together they will run this century. While governments can affect the state of affairs within their own borders, I do not believe that by themselves they will have sufficient influence to bring about the scale of change required. Global businesses are already influencing what is happening, particularly in developing countries, and only they will have the resources and independence needed.
Of course, if governments help rather than hinder the process then change will happen sooner, but I don’t think we can rely on governments; in the past they have been resistant to introducing the right initiatives, if not plain hostile. Why would they want to upset the cosy status quo which has allowed them to feather their nests for so long? By contrast, businesses are in a position to control what they do, and if they don’t like the environment in one particular country they can always pack up and find another more enlightened host.
All too often aid and charity get lost in the entrails of government bureaucracy – sometimes through plain corruption, sometimes just because of the dead hand of government machinations – and those who really need the money, the poor and the destitute, rarely see it. So an institution is needed which is far more in control of its own operations. A company is driven by profit. It is constantly monitoring performance through good financial practice. If the management see the firm’s assets disappearing without explanation they will want to know why, will rapidly introduce change and, if necessary, will sack the culprits pilfering the money. Government doesn’t work like that.
Everyone accepts that we are interdependent, living in a shrinking world. Pollution in one country affects us all; financial incompetence, as we witnessed all too clearly in 2008, can have an almost instant global impact. There is no hiding place, but on the plus side such transparency can work in our favour. If governments introduce an initiative, say to help generate new wealth, improve farming or provide clean drinking water, then obviously they can share that success with a worldwide audience instantaneously. But you rarely hear about totally innovative governmentled projects which have been successful in this area. The only successful projects are NGO-led initiatives. They may be cooperatives or some other small-scale ventures producing goods for sale locally, but that is a drop in the ocean, and it is not going to bring about the necessary change. That change can only come about if it is done on a large scale; charities and NGOs don’t have the resources to do it alone. The advantage of charities and NGOs is that they are operating all over the world, and if people want to know what works they should just look at the charity networks. There are plenty of examples, but we need more development of business models like SEWA or Grameen, and on a larger scale. This can only come about through the business world. It is the only way we can bring about real change in the long term.
I don’t doubt for one moment the sincerity of people giving generously to charity, sending money to help a child who has to carry water for miles. But why are we doing that? We should be helping the child’s mother to support all her children, not sending money so one of her children can be lifted out of poverty. I get quite worked up about these images of children, but I suppose they tug at people’s heart strings in the way a picture of an adult woman might not. Give a few pence, and we can educate this child. But what is the sense or the logic in such a generous act? Give the mother the 60p a day, because then she will feed all her children and be able to send them all to school. It is time they started using women to tug at people’s heart strings. If you help a woman to earn money, she will send her first and second child to school. If you work at the base line, the mother, you are going to help all her children. The mother is the universal key to the well-being of the entire family. You can’t help one child at a time. Adopt a child! Why not adopt a woman? The charities are all so focused on the children. It looks good; it appeals to our emotions, like adopting a panda or a tiger. But you have to see how you can bring about long-term change, not fix on one person who has fallen down and pick them up. That person will be all right, but all the others are still lying on the ground.
Just as businesses constantly monitor their books, if they really believe in this concept then they will closely scrutinise these new enterprises. I also believe that they will very quickly see the impact of their work because it will be reflected in the community around them and, most importantly, it will show up as profit in their books. Remember, the whole basis of this idea is that small businesses can be created that will enable both women and the companies backing them to make money; it is part and parcel of their corporate social responsibility, but it is not charity. It is absolutely essential – as I have said before, but it merits repeating – that businesses must benefit. It might not be part of their core activity but they should approach it in a businesslike fashion. Any project must be sustainable if it is to survive and deliver over the long term.
There is an almost in-built reluctance in Africa and the sub-continent to employ women or even see them as part of the normal paid workforce; in developed countries women are everywhere working in every conceivable environment – they are even part of the front-line troops, much to the surprise of many civilians. They have managed – not without difficulty – to push themselves into the workforce. And yet although women sustain everything in the developing world – agriculture, the health and welfare of their families, labouring in all sorts of environments – they are not regarded as part of the ‘normal’ workforce. That is probably one of the most fundamental points which has got to change if we are to make progress.
The sensitivities of society and religion may dictate that men and women cannot work side by side, but that was also how life began in the factories in the West. What is the problem? The problem is the problem itself, not something that is insoluble. It is not an obstacle, just a stepping stone along the way: simply create segregated work areas. If women can be asked to carry bricks on building sites as they do in developing countries, why should they be considered unsuitable for less physically demanding labour? Why are they not trained as bricklayers, if they can carry bricks – which is the toughest part of the job and gets the least money?
Training is clearly important. There is always this argument which says women can’t do these jobs because they aren’t trained, but men are not born trained. If companies operating in India or Africa managed to overcome the child labour taboo and started employing boys and girls, they will soon have a trained workforce. All people have to be trained, and women are people. If you stop using words like ‘equality’ and ‘empowerment’, then men will stop feeling threatened. Men also worry that they will lose the complete control they have over the lives of their families. Well, that would not be such a bad thing, because when they control the lives of their families they don’t actually do the best that can be done.
Maybe the members of the United Nations should remember the Mission Statement of its own Division for the Advancement of Women:
Grounded in the vision of equality of the United Nations Charter, the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW) advocates the improvement of the status of women of the world, and the achievement of their equality with men – as equal actors, partners, and beneficiaries of sustainable development, human rights, peace and security. Together with Governments, other entities of the United Nations system, and civil society, including non-governmental organizations, DAW actively works to advance the global agenda on women’s rights, gender equality and the empowerment of women, and ensure that women’s voices are heard in international policy arenas.
Are these really empty words – an impossible dream? I think we must accept that the UN is powerless to bring about this sort of change, which is why I am turning to the business community who have signed up to the Millennium Development Goals. If we take India, for example, where the rise of business is phenomenal and companies are becoming influential global operators, we ought to be able to look to them to see what practices they could adopt to bring about change. I know of companies that are trying to help, but the effort lacks consistency and it is not being done on a scale that would bring about any real change in society or deliver real benefit to the poorest people; and as I always keep saying, the poorest of the poor are the women. We must hope that companies will adopt practices which will actually bring about real change. I welcome the growth and success of India’s enterprises, but we must never forget that India has more malnourished people than any other country in the world. The United Nations can set its goals, which every member country supports, but in my opinion it is failing to use its undoubted influence, certainly as far as women are concerned. It is difficult to see that women permeate the UN’s thinking in any way. It is all very well having a separate, even dedicated branch for women, but that is precisely what it is: an adjunct, just a sop. Women should be part of the central thinking of the UN on its many different levels.
Just as globalisation can have its benefits, ‘one world’ also has its drawbacks, and when one nation catches an economic cold, or even a fever, today we all catch it. The recession which has gripped us all is not going to be helpful, because naturally companies will hesitate to look beyond their core business or take on new initiatives when they are focused 100 per cent on survival. Bankers in particular will retrench, cut overheads, possibly even retreat to their own countries. But sometimes when you are in a dip that is just the time to try something new – it may actually help you out of a dip. In fact a slump may be precisely the right time to try new initiatives. It’s no good saying that you will wait until the economic climate has improved. We have supposedly just been through a boom time, and nothing was done then, because when things are going well people are frightened of making a change. There is never a perfect time for trying something new, so why not do it now? I am not suggesting that this is the time for extravagance or large-scale investments: quite the reverse. The beauty of my proposal is that for a small investment a large return is possible. I am proposing a first step: if it is successful, it could grow into a large enterprise and everyone will benefit; if it should fail, little will have been lost in money, time or effort.
The advantage for a company, beyond just profit, is the good publicity resulting from helping many of those trapped in poverty. If an idea works, the concept can be shared with others all over the world. But it requires serious commitment, without which nothing can ever work. I scan the list of the great and the good who have signed up to the Millennium Development Goals and ask myself what has been the result. What tangible benefit has there been for just one individual family in Africa or India? Signatures on paper remain just that, paper commitments. If indeed they have done more, we should all be shouting about it and celebrating their achievements because the ideas can be replicated. If all the companies on that list just make one effort and launch just one venture, great changes can be brought about. The power of the businesses to make a difference is much greater than even they realise. They rightly focus on their businesses, but if they spend just a fraction of their time on seeing how they can employ women, the impact could be huge. To date, strangely, it is the banks who have set the pace for change, but now that they have been directly and strikingly affected by the economic crash they probably can’t do more. The difference, though, is that the banks have been helping women earn money through money, but this cannot be the only way. The women ought to be able to earn money by labour and by producing something tangible for sale.
While we are looking at globalisation, we can’t ignore the more predatory type of globalisation which countries like China are operating. China, of course, is an extreme example, because its only objective is to gather influence and acquire precious resources. It still has a command economy, not even pretending to embrace democracy, so its objectives must always be suspect when it offers to provide aid to its new African ‘friends’. I see globalisation purely in terms of the benefit it brings to big business, allowing it to make money, yes, but where it can also exercise a global as well as localised social conscience and responsibility. The reason we need to look to big business is precisely because there is no other institution which could bring about change without putting itself at risk in any way and without drawing accusations of political opportunism.
My hope is that by harnessing the twin powers of the spirit of globalisation and the energy and enterprise of business we will be able to turn words into action. We don’t need any more speeches or reports and expensive conferences; instead, we need to examine which projects are making a difference. If there are such projects, why isn’t good practice being exchanged? Why are we still talking about what is to be done? Has nothing been done in the past seven or eight years? Has nothing been achieved? If it has, we need to know more about it so it can be repeated: how was it achieved, at what cost, what were the benefits, what impact did it have on reducing poverty, Aids, hunger, disease, how many more children received education? With these real facts, any business can pick up the baton and multiply the benefits. It should then be perfectly straightforward to establish a database of women-centric projects which are successful, so that they can be rigorously tested to see how they are benefiting both the company and the community, and so we can move closer to achieving the MDGs.
In order to be successful in a country, enterprises must be sensitive to the local customs – which in my view makes them ideal ambassadors to promote this agenda. It chimes with the findings of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) report on the state of world population released in November 2008. Entitled Reaching Common Ground: Culture, Gender and Human Rights, the report stated: ‘Development strategies that are sensitive to cultural values can reduce harmful practices against women and promote human rights including gender equality and women’s empowerment.’
As I have said before, women’s empowerment will follow all in good time, but I was heartened by the statement of the UNFPA’s Executive Director, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, which said: ‘To be healthy throughout the life cycle – before pregnancy, during pregnancy and after pregnancy – is a human right.’
While we may be living in a ‘globalised’ society, we nevertheless have our differences and these must be respected and preserved. As the UNFPA says, by adopting a sensitive approach and working with cultures, effective strategies and practices can be developed while promoting human rights at the same time.
It’s easy to criticise, and I know that there are many individuals and organisations working hard to help people in many different countries. But if I were put in charge of bringing about the changes I am advocating I would focus on specific areas within each country, and send a woman into the villages to talk to the women there. A man might need to go in too, as a courtesy to the male head of a community, but it takes a woman to understand another woman’s needs. I would want to see what the women’s lives were like: how did they live, and had they any money? I would see whether the children were getting any education – if there was even a school. I would want to understand what was happening on the ground before suggesting any goals, targets or plans. I would look at what businesses were operating already in the district and what opportunities for women there might be from those businesses. If there were none, I would consider what specific product might be needed in the community and try to persuade a suitable business to set up a joint venture or cooperative so that the villagers could sell the goods and the business could also enjoy some of the profit.
This is how, in a very modest way, I would start. It is not something you can wave a wand at and say everyone should do it like that. That is where mistakes are made, because every area will have different needs. Every nation will have different types of people available for work. But businesses which are there already could be making this sort of inquiry themselves. They could see which were the nearest villages and poorest communities around them and establish a small business venture that local women could run. Or they could see whether the women or young people could be employed in some part of their core business. They might consider adopting a village; the Chamber of Commerce in Calcutta at one time was doing just that, creating excellent work opportunities although they weren’t focusing on women.
These may seem obvious suggestions, and you wonder whether people are not already going to the villages. Some may be, but they don’t go and ask the women. Never mind the developing countries – every consultation with ethnic minorities in the UK is with males. There are no women at these meetings, because women are not so-called community leaders. Why should communities work only through community leaders? It is one of the most damaging aspects of ethnic minority consultations. Does the rest of the British population have a community leader? Who is he – Gordon Brown? At some point one has got to stop having community leaders and start just having communities where everyone has a voice. If the white British don’t have community leaders, why should ethnic minorities in Britain, and why do we have to deal only with (male) community leaders in the villages of India?
Why is the wise one of the village always considered to be a man? The eldest and the wisest is synonymous with the one who is the most old-fashioned, the least forward-looking. He wants to maintain the status quo and is therefore precisely the wrong person to talk to. If you are stupid, you are stupid. If you are also old, you are just old and stupid. We do now at last have village governments in India, and some of them have women representatives, albeit a small number – and I do wonder if at times they are merely ‘fronting’ for men. But the empowerment comes from self-confidence, and self-confidence comes from the ability to earn money. It is not the same everywhere, sadly; in the UK some people have come to realise that they are better off not working. It has become the survival of the unfittest, much to the fury of the working people of Britain. In India they have large families, and that means more hands to help with the work; in the UK some women may have eight or nine children by different fathers with the sole intention of never doing a day’s work in their lives. The world sometimes just looks upside down.
But our focus is on the people who are desperate to lift themselves out of poverty and who are prepared to work; it is an ethos that remains with them all their lives, even when they travel to the West and achieve their life’s ambition. It struck me that somehow we had to bring about change, and if you concentrate on situations in poor countries there is nothing else left that hasn’t been tried. It is almost as though this is the last ditch. And then the penny dropped – help the mothers and the girls, and the rest follows automatically. Just look back at the underlying themes of the MDGs which along the way seem to have been forgotten, and it becomes crystal clear. Everyone insists they are women-centric, but that is as far as they go. It seems to me that it is time to put the alleged underlying core of the MDGs into practice. Don’t just say women are central: show that they are central by diverting just a tiny fraction of the effort, the aid, and above all the belief into women. After all, what is the alternative?