The American firm B Corp offers businesses the chance to win a ‘kitemark’ by a box-ticking process showing that they are committed to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace, and Coutts decided to go for it. Given how that turned out, one wonders how they reached that decision. Had they followed Aristotle’s advice on decision-making, they might have come out better from the debacle.
In dealings with other people, Aristotle argued, it was essential to pay close attention to the following criteria: a) What are the reasons for which you are taking action? b) What were the needs that prompted it? c) How do you hope to achieve what you want? d) Are you dealing with the right people on the matter? e) Is it the right time to act?
Further, in the process of answering each of those questions, it was important to judge whether the action you were taking was likely to meet the ethical criteria implied under the following four headings: 1) Is what you are all agreeing to do ‘just’, ‘legal’ and ‘fair’? 2) Is it ‘advantageous’? 3) Is it ‘honourable’ or ‘reputable’? 4) Finally, is it ‘fitting, ‘suitable’ and ‘appropriate’?
Clearly, B Corp offered Coutts no advantage directly related to the bank’s actual operations. So was it really needed? Well, it looked fashionably advantageous enough PR. But Coutts boasted of being exclusive. So was it ‘fitting’? Did Coutts have a memory lapse about the way they dealt with clients? Did the box-ticking team not notice that it was the bank’s policy to throw out clients on grounds that had nothing to do with their financial situation? Or did they think it entirely reasonable for such a business to be inclusive about employment, but not customers? How rigorous were their procedures? There is nothing wrong with encouraging DEI and such like. But how did Coutts come to make the decision to proceed with this PR job, in the light of its own exclusive practices? Let alone to respond as it did? Aristotle did not do PR: you cannot PR your way to a sustainable reputation.
Comments