|
How regulatory patterns unfold in the future will be determined by
how corporations respond to the new dynamics of regulation and
activism emerging today. Companies already manage a diverse array
of constituents, including governments, nongovernmental organizations,
consumers, and the public, in addition to their own shareholders.
As such, value-building companies that find creative ways to
address broad social concerns and cooperate with interest groups
may be better positioned for future success than those with a singleminded
pursuit of the bottom line. But regulatory trends will also
depend on the power and reach of governments. As regulatory issues
grow increasingly complex and overstretched, governments run
headlong into their own demographic crises. The result is that quality
and efficiency could decline, and regulators may see eroding public
support for government oversight. At any rate, corporate
executives looking for a single prescription are not likely to find one.
Big Brother Is Watching
Instead, business leaders must prepare for a range of possible scenarios.
The first scenario, big brother is watching, envisions a hardening of the
trend toward empowered governments and strident anti-corporate
activists around the world. Periodic scandals at prominent global corporations
do not help. Thousands of people see jobs disappear as their companies
suffer market setbacks, and stockholders watch as their investments
shrink. The stock markets remain unfriendly territory for the majority of
corporations—and between a wary public and outraged advocacy groups,
the rest of society does not provide much support, either.
In response, governments expand their oversight and impose increasingly
tight restrictions over the private sector, at the same time that taxes
and fiscal spending are on the rise. The growing clout of regulatory
agencies helps them recruit talent and overcome the retirement-driven
brain drain, often by hiring directly away from industry. Compliance
costs for most companies rise dramatically, and companies that survive
find they are in a cost-cutting race to the bottom. Some escape offshore
to take advantage of less cumbersome costs and restrictions, but the difficulty
of selling goods and services back to highly regulated home markets
makes this a limited option. At the same time, activist groups keep
close tabs on overseas operations by monitoring corporate activities and
publicizing anything untoward through the media. In short, firms face
intense pressure from above and below, and only those that are able to
cut back and make their organizations “lean and mean” survive.
Partial Restraint
A second scenario, partial restraint, offers a more hospitable environment
in which corporations, governments, and activists find a middle ground.
Occasional threats to national security continue to bubble up around the
world, reinforcing the need for government oversight, while at the same
time revealing its limitations. Tight budgets and a limited pool of talent
help check government power, and most regulation remains moderate
and rational. While efforts at self-regulation produce a mixed bag of
results, large global companies become more attuned to volatile public
opinion and do a better job of reacting to activist pressure, by strategically
choosing times to fight and times to concede. An uneasy truce
develops, with activists monitoring corporate behavior and corporations
tinkering with a wide range of partnership, certification, and charity
efforts, in addition to better business practices. As scandals wane, public
attitudes toward corporations gradually soften.
Chicago Boys II
A third possible scenario is called Chicago boys II. It imagines a future in
which global corporations experience a new boom and largely unfettered
markets abound. As notions of corporate social responsibility spread
throughout the ranks of business, corporations overcome the cynicism
greeting them at the turn of the century. Big companies project increasingly
transparent, responsible images, convincing larger segments of
society that the private sector is aware of important issues and stands
ready to act as responsible players in their communities. Having overreached
in previous years, once-powerful government regulatory agencies
are cutting back. With no major security concerns on the horizon,
they reduce both budgets and personnel and begin streamlining regulation,
often in cooperation with the private sector. Activists remain a
powerful force, but they more often work in partnership with corporations,
who look to third parties to validate their sound business practices,
adherence to emerging social and environmental norms, and socially
responsible community initiatives.
As is the case with all of our scenarios, each outcome depends upon
multiple, interacting factors. Strict regulations and a reversal in globalization,
for instance, could create an inhospitable climate for global business.
Alternatively, regulatory flexibility and strong consumer
confidence could create powerful conditions for global business to reach
new consumers in far-flung markets.
|