Global Compact International Yearbook 2015

What we have seen is that the notion of CSR under the Global
Compact leadership has evolved to include the whole notion
of what business is all about. This movement, in my view, is
a retrieval of the work of Adam Smith, the moral philosopher,
who published his ideas in the 18th century.
When the Global Compact started in 2000, the concept of CSR was
avant garde. Today, it is mainstream. Did it lose some of its bite and
innovative power?
Williams: I think it still has bite for those companies that have
not adopted it yet – the new notion of CSR. Bill Gates gave a
very important talk several years back at the World Economic
Forum in which he talked about his understanding of the purpose
of business, which is largely to create sustainable value
for stakeholders. He said that what we need to talk about today
is creative capitalism. And that means we not only rely on the
profit motive for the motivation of business, but we also get
back to Adam Smith and rely on the simple notion that we
are all basically compassionate human beings and we want
to reach out and help the less fortunate. Companies ought to
take on that dual set of motivations and take on projects that
demonstrate that they are motivated by profit as well as by
enhancing the life of the least advantaged. That talk, called
“Creative capitalism,” has been widely discussed by business,
and Bill Gates has been a leader in the UN Global Compact.
I think one of the reasons he is a leader is not only because
he made a lot of money, but also that he has the ability to
conceptualize – sometimes better than academics – about
what is going on in business and how to really get returns on
investment: not only in monetary terms but environmental
and human terms.
When founding the Global Compact, the United Nations put its own
reputation on the line. At the beginning, many – even within the UN
system – were deeply worried. After 15 years, do you think the business
participants have given back enough to the UN?
Williams: Certainly some of them have. We have a leadership
group called the LEAD Group. They are the companies that are
role models for the notion of creating sustainable value for
stakeholders and they have taken on major projects to solve
some of the problems in the wider society. It is inspiring to see
companies solving problems in developing countries, where
governments are unable or unwilling to do it, but mostly unable,
because they do not have the management skills. There
are several thousand projects currently in progress, and often
the businesses are working in partnerships with governments,
UN groups, and sometimes NGOs. So my answer is: yes and
no. There are companies that are doing wonderful things, and
there are some that are just doing the minimum.
If you follow the Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact, you
are, in ethical terms, basically doing no harm. That is what
the Ten Principles are designed to do. But the UNGC goes on
to say that you are invited to do much more than avoiding
harming stakeholders. You are invited to take on some of the
projects in broader society, particularly in developing countries,
to help the least advantaged, and again, there are thousands
of companies that have responded to that invitation.
Sethi and Schepers, two authors from Barush College, recently wrote
that the UNGC depends too much on the corporate sector for its own
survival, and that that would raise serious questions as to the usefulness
and continued existence of the UNGC. You are a member of the
Global Compact Foundation Board, therefore we assume that you
are an insider. Is it true? How strong is the influence of companies?
Williams: Indeed, I am on the board of what is called the
Foundation for the UN Global Compact. It is chaired by Sir
Mark Moody-Stuart, who is a former CEO of Shell, and the
chairman of the board of directors of Anglo-American. The
second member is Jim Kearney, who is a lawyer in a New York
City firm. The third one is I. We do take care and oversee the
finances and broader policy framework. But there is also the
Advisory Board of the Global Compact, which consists primarily
of CEOs from around the world, as well as some representatives
from labor and NGOs. As far as the day-to-day policy of
the UN Global Compact, some of the very active members
are NGOs and some of them are not entirely supportive of
the Global Compact, they are critics. I find that very helpful.
We need good critics who will look at the companies knowing
that the COPs are public. The companies know that they
will be scolded and publicly embarrassed should the reports
be deceptive. It will cost them their reputation and capital.
The Global Compact is first and foremost an ethical framework. Multilateralism
is its principle instrument. But this instrument today seems
to be less assertive. At best, we see some coalitions of the willing, but no
global consensus. That was the case in the Copenhagen Climate Summit
2010, at the Rio+20 conference in 2012, as well as for all climate
conferences in preparation of the Paris Climate Summit this December.
What does the crisis concerning the weakening of the multilateralism
process mean for the future governance of the UNGC?
26
Global Compact International Yearbook 2015