Dr. Van Buren, what a great pleasure
to have you back in Lebanon. I'm really, really happy to be back. It's a long way from University
of Tennessee at Chattanooga, where basically you are contributing to pattern
endowed share of business ethics. I was one of the lucky ones to have taught with you business
ethics, what, 5 or 6 years ago? four years ago, it feels like longer
in the midst of the pandemic. But we taught together
my very last semester here. Well, it's a great pleasure to have you. I have a few questions. we're brothers in arms
on the topic of business ethics. Indeed we are. And I'm sure our audience, are eager to learn from this podcast. I have a first question for you. Can you tell us
about your academic background? and what inspired you to focus on business
ethics, responsible leadership, and business and human rights? What specific experiences
or events in your career led you to prioritize
these particular areas of study? I often say that research questions choose
you rather than the other way around, and that's very much
the case for my work in business ethics. I was the first in my family
to go to college. My father, was a union steward, so he would try to represent workers
in negotiations with a company. And I saw that over time, it was harder
and harder for him to negotiate contracts. And in fact, the very last contract
he negotiated was a contract to close the plant and essentially destroy the facility
where he had worked for 37 years. So the reason I got into business
ethics was I had seen what happens when businesses don't treat
stakeholders like employees well. as a person
who is the first to go to college in my family,
I really wanted to try to think about the ways
a business could make things better. Now, what brought me to academia
was a very long journey. I initially thought
I wanted to get a PhD in finance, discovered
that I really had a passion for ethics, didn't know anything about ethics,
and so of all places, I went to seminary. So I have a master of Divinity degree
from Princeton Seminary in New Jersey. realized I didn't want to become
a member of the clergy that sent me back to a business school. But the work that I do is really about
the people who are left behind, the people who are exploited in some way
by business. And I'm constantly
trying to think about new business models in which there is respect for human rights
and respect for stakeholders, so that business can play the role
that I believe that it can play in developing not just human flourishing,
but ultimately a good society. Thank you. In your opinion, what are the biggest
ethical challenges facing businesses today and how can leaders effectively
address them? How do you believe responsible
leadership can contribute to both the ethical
and financial success of a company? I think I want to talk about two
major challenges that are interrelated. The first is business
and shared prosperity. One of the things I think we've seen in
a lot of places is employees, for example, not getting their fair share
in terms of the value that they generate. We see in a lot of places,
there are societal pressures for businesses to play a proper role
in developing a good society, in which
everybody has a decent standard of living. But there are many places
around the world, contexts like where we are right now,
where business isn't playing that role. So a broad meta question for me is
what is the appropriate role of business in creating the conditions
for shared prosperity in which all stakeholders benefit? The second area,
and I think this is really important, is the area of human rights. About ten years ago,
I was dissatisfied with where a lot of work in corporate
social responsibility was heading. I didn't really see it as rigorous enough
or demanding enough for business. And so I was attracted to human
rights precisely because I saw in human rights a sturdier basis to hold businesses
accountable for their behavior. Now, if we think about the role
of leadership, particularly when it comes to thinking about shared prosperity
and respect for human rights, it's really profound. And in fact, I'm coming here
having just taught a executive MBA class where we focus on ethical leadership,
and I spent a lot of time talking about the role that leaders play
in thinking about corporate purpose in a major part of corporate purpose
being how you relate to stakeholders. So questions of shared prosperity
and how businesses ensure human rights, respect, both
in their direct and indirect operations are, to me, the front and center
questions in the business ethics field. But what
about companies that do not comply or adhere to the business and human rights
principles and standards? could you share some examples
on how businesses can inadvertently violate human rights and what strategies they can implement
to mitigate these risks? So let's talk about a product that
all of us carry with us our mobile phones. most people would rather give up a lung than give up their mobile phone,
because we do so much on them. But embedded in your mobile phone, and in the battery is a mineral called
cobalt. And cobalt is mined primarily
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has horrific human rights violations in which artisanal miners and artisanal
doesn't mean that they are artists. It means that they're essentially
working for themselves or exploited in horrific working conditions and earning
just very, almost pennies a day
for the work that they're doing. Now Apple or Samsung,
when they sell that phone to you, is selling that for hundreds of dollars,
perhaps even more than $1,000. And yet the cobalt
that makes the battery work, the people that actually generate
that cobalt, are not being treated fairly. So when we think about supply chains, it's
not like Apple says our business model
is about exploiting people for profit. Rather, it exists in a system in which there are unjust economic relationships
in, particularly in countries. And one of the things I'm sure we're going
to talk about is what happens in places in which there are institutional voids
and in effect, it and corrupt government. Well, that describes
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Apple is not creating a business model
to exploit human rights, but it benefits from those human
rights violations. And then the question is, how do we hold
businesses accountable for respect for human rights, which then has a knock
on effect on shared prosperity? So to the extent that Apple and Samsung
and other mobile phone companies were able to act in a way, or
willing to act in a way to ensure respect for human rights, including ensuring
that people are paid a living wage that would have profound implications
for the people who live in the DRC and would really not cost consumers
much of anything at all. Thank you. can you discuss any notable case studies,
for example, where companies successfully integrated human rights
principles and its business operations? The example that everybody talks about
is Patagonia. But I want to use a different example
because the danger in talking about a company
like Patagonia is that appeals to a very well off
clientele. And so it's really easy to say,
well, Patagonia is a company that charges a lot of money
for its products so it can ensure environmental responsibility
and respect for human rights. Let's take another product. And I often joke with my students
that I'm going to make them sad because they're going
to tell them something they would rather not know about
the products and services that they buy. So cell phones or mobile
phones are one thing. What about chocolate? We know that chocolate and cocoa
is harvested in countries like the Ivory Coast, where child
labor and forced labor are endemic. So large chocolate manufacturers
have made noises about trying to improve their supply chains and ensure
that they are trafficking and slave free. But there's a company in the Netherlands
called Tony's Chocolonely that is committed to eradicating both forced labor
and child labor in its supply chain. Now, it's important to say
it can't guarantee that because it's very,
very challenging to manage these issues. But it's made the commitment
to create a business model in which it manufactures high quality
chocolate for a competitive price, but does so in a way
that respects human rights. And if Tony's Chocolonely, a small player
in the chocolate market, can do that, so can bigger companies, bigger corporates
that have much more power and much more influence. with the rise of supply chain,
as you just said. Yeah. How can companies ensure ethical practices
and respectful human rights throughout the entire supply
chain? Let's start with an idea that I've been working
with called plausible deniability. So the problem with supply chains
is it's easy to close your eyes and simply say, well,
I didn't know. We know that the direct problems are not
usually in companies direct operations. They're usually one level, two level
three levels into the supply chain. But these problems also relate
to the core business model of companies and how it is that they're doing business. So let's start with the notion
that if you're a company, you have an obligation to know
what's in your supply chain. And if you can't guarantee
that your supply chain is free from human rights violations,
why not? How are you going
to change your business model? So for me, knowledge
in taking on the burden and the responsibility of knowing how your business
is affecting other people, both directly and indirectly, to me, is fundamental
to the task of business ethics. And it's really easy
for a company to say, well, we didn't know because it was being done by a supplier,
but that's not good enough in 2024. We have to demand
more of companies and increasingly, both national legislation
in say, Europe and Australia, as well as stakeholder pressures,
including consumer pressures, are really expecting companies
to change their behavior in that area. What about the role of governments
and legal and regulatory, bodies, whether it's promoting ethical business
or respecting human rights? Governments,
a really, really complicated factor. And it's something I've been giving a lot of thought about,
because when we talk about government, we're talking about very local conditions. So you could look at countries
in the EU, for example, and they've done an awful lot
in the domain of human rights, not enough, and there's pressure
to do more in the areas of human rights due diligence,
which I'm sure we're going to talk about. But there's clear pressure on companies
that are headquartered in the EU, for example,
a little less than the United States, but certainly the EU, to take responsibility
for human rights in their supply chains. Now let's think about where
the supply chains are happening: Lebanon, China, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo. What are these countries have in common? They have institutional voids. We can affect government. one term that is often used is that
these are areas of limited statehood in which the state is for various reasons,
either corrupt or ineffective or just doesn't have the capacity
to regulate business. And so then the question becomes,
how do we change the behavior of business? And obviously, there's a role
for international law in this regard. There's a role for domestic law
in developed countries. There's a role for civil society
and international NGOs in demanding changes
in behavior of companies operating in places like Lebanon
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The challenge is building institutional
capacity, and institutional willingness. And these really do go hand in hand
to ensure that everywhere where a company operates,
it is enhancing respect for stakeholders, enhancing respect for human rights, and
ultimately making those societies better. And we both know
that there are places around the world in which government doesn't do that
to the cost of the people who live there. In countries where corruption is pervasive. So let's start with the, challenges. let's think about countries in
which corruption is a significant issue. Lebanon, is a very,
very obvious example of that. I had the experience
because you and I taught the same course, and we when we have taught it together,
and I imagine it still is taught this way. There is a semester long project. One of the options was to have
students write and then develop a training program
on not paying bribes. It was a very uncomfortable experience
for me as an American to introduce this topic
and have my students actually laugh at me. And so that was an education, for me
in terms of, well, why does it feel strange or funny to talk about not paying bribes? And then they talked about
what was happening in the local context. So part of the problem also is that in a lot of places,
people are resigned to paying bribes. They simply feel like they can't,
push back. And it's hard
for individuals to push back. But if businesses work together,
one of the things that they can do is they can establish standards to say
that we're going to behave differently. Now, the challenge, of course is,
making sure the businesses live up to their commitments in parallel. So there are multi-stakeholder initiatives that are meant to address
some of these issues. The fundamental challenge, of course, is
how do you make up for a lack of institutional capacity
or willingness in countries in which bribery is endemic or human
rights violations are also endemic? And this is,
I think, one of the persistent challenges there needs to be local activism
and a place for business in dealing with these issues, but
there also needs to be outside pressure and how we get
there is a fundamental challenge because one of the things that really impressed me
when I lived in Lebanon, was how resigned people were to the context in which, the state just isn't
terribly effective at all. And that would be a very kind of way
of putting it. Would multi-stakeholder initiatives
be a solution? How do you see a multi-stakeholder
initiative that involves different stakeholders, from international
organizations to local organizations and civil society admins and support
organizations come together in advancing, ethical, ethical business? I think multi-stakeholder, coalitions
and initiatives are incredibly, incredibly important, particularly in context
in which there are institutional voids. So they can involve groups
like civil society organizations that are on the ground
that have local knowledge and expertise, and they have legitimacy to speak on
behalf of the people that live there. I think one of the real challenges,
as someone who is a Westerner coming to a place like Lebanon is
somebody could legitimately ask, well, who gave me a license
to speak on behalf of the Lebanese people in terms of what they would want
and what they would benefit, benefit from? This is where having local partnerships
and on the ground knowledge
and legitimacy is incredibly important. But then allying, with groups in developed countries
or expecting that developed country governments, play a role in regulation
or setting standards. I think that there are multiple pressure
points that need to be brought to bear in multi-stakeholder initiatives
are a really important part of that, in terms
of making up for institutional voids. The challenge, of course, is that progress in those domains is really slow,
because it's hard to make up for a lack
of institutional capacity and willingness and in an environment in which there are
institutional voids, for whatever reason. We're talking about second best solutions
that are absolutely necessary, but are trying to counteract things
that the state should be doing but isn't. In your experience,
what are some common misconceptions or pitfalls that companies encounter
in attempting to implement ethical standards
and challenging environments? And how can these be addressed? I want to start
with a baseline, assumption that people make, and that is that people in different countries
want different things. And so contexts are different. And the problem is that when businesses
say, well, contexts are different, we can't operate the same way in one place
as we operate somewhere else. I always want to ask the question, why? How do you know that? How do you know what it is
that local people want? When I moved here in 2019,
one of the first questions I got was, who is going to supply your drinking water.
Now as an American, this is a question
that doesn't have any meaning whatsoever. You turn on the tap
and that water is drinkable. It's not the case
that people in the United States want potable drinking water from the tap, but
people in Lebanon are just fine buying. Their own water. And the same thing
holds true with human rights. The same thing
holds true with environmental responsibility. I think sometimes companies
try to dodge their responsibilities by saying
we're simply adjusting to local context. And so I always want to challenge
companies and say, well, how do you know that
the context is really different now? Contexts do differ, obviously, in terms of religion and culture
and any number of other things. But when it comes, Yasser, to ethical behavior
and what we expect the business, I want to make the very strong argument that there's more similarity
than difference. And then the question for business is how do you understand the local context
and how do you understand the way to best implement
responsible business practices given the context you're operating in,
as opposed to simply saying, well, when we're in one place, we're going to do one thing,
and when we're in another place, we're going to do something
completely different. That to me, is an ethical dodge. And I think it's really important
to challenge companies on that. Looking ahead, what do you envision
as the future of business ethics in regions where corruption
and international weaknesses persist, and what steps can be taken to drive
positive change in these environments? I think probably the most exciting
area of work in business ethics is the emerging body of scholarship
in business and human rights, and not every issue is a human
rights issue. But increasingly, there's an understanding
that the human rights frame is a really important one. So let's go back to something
I talked about earlier: the right to water. Everybody needs water to live. So if we understand
water is a human right, then we have to put business, in the dock for how it is either
fulfilling that right or getting in the way of that
right being fulfilled. So when businesses pollute water sources,
they are fundamentally violating people's right to water, which is one of the most
essential things that people need. I think that human rights
are really powerful prism to start to look at moral minimums,
I think we need to adopt the language of what business must do
and why business must do it. And this is where I think
human rights are incredibly important. And what's powerful about human rights is that they apply at all
times, all places, all circumstances. They're equally, appropriate in Canada as they are in Cambodia. In Louth as they are in Lebanon. And because human rights function
as this baseline obligation, irrespective of whether
there are institutional voids or not, businesses are still on the hook
for ensuring respect for them. Then we have to start to interrogate, well, how are businesses ensuring
respect for human rights in places where there is a high level of corruption
and institutional voids? How are we holding business accountable
for ensuring that there is a baseline of respect
for human rights in every single place they do business, so that at a minimum,
they're not doing harm. Then once we get there, we can start
to ask the deeper questions about what does it mean for a business
to provide positive benefit every place where it operates? Thank you. What about the role of education and training programs
in developing the capacity building? What role can they play, to trigger this inflection point? in business behavior. I think I'll immediately start
with the work that you and I are doing, in teaching business ethics
and talking about business ethics. I think business schools play a very,
very significant role. Let's go back to the 2008
financial crisis. There was a lot of soul searching
in the part of business in terms of did we cause this? Did we contribute to this
in some sort of way? When we taught finance, did
we forget to teach ethics as well? It turns out we did. And that's why the world
economy almost died in 2008. I think business schools
have a lot of responsibility, not just for the teaching that we do
and how we form our students who are going to be the future managers
and leaders of tomorrow. But I think we have a deeper responsibility to be the place
where these conversations are fostered. How do we bring together
members of civil society, together with business leaders who normally
would never talk to each other at all? If business schools aren't fostering
those conversations? Who's going to do it? And so I think business schools in our teaching and research play
in absolutely profound role. But I think we really need to be the place
where these conversations happen, and people start to talk to each other
about the role of business in creating a good and just and dignified
society for everybody who lives there. Thank you so much. I've been advocating so much for what
you just said. My last question,
as a scholar and educator, what advice would you give to young
professionals aspiring to lead ethical, ethically and responsibly
in their future careers in business? I think the most important piece of advice
I would offer you, Yasser, is you are responsible for yourself
and your career. You have choice. Think about the students at AUB,
for example. they are incredibly well trained. Some of the best students I've ever had
in almost 30 years of teaching. I taught at AUB and for me,
the quality of the education they get here and the influence they're going to have
generates a responsibility on them. Several responsibilities. One is to choose ethical businesses. So one of the things I would talk
to undergraduate students about here is finding a company
that fits your values. And I think that's incredibly important. But the second, and I think
that is equally important as well, is you're accountable for your behavior
inside of an organization. You can't simply say: "Well, my manager told me to do this",
or "The CEO said that it was okay." You are an independent moral agent. You're responsible for your behavior. But more importantly,
as you assume positions of greater and greater responsibility,
your sphere of influence changes. So the ways that you treat employees,
the ways that you interact with customers, the ways that you conceptualize
environmental responsibility, you have agency
and you have responsibility. So rather than to give that up
to a business, to take responsibility for that very early in your career,
because ultimately, I really do believe that this student
generation of students can be the generation
that makes business better, but they have to be willing to grab on
to that responsibility. And increasingly, I'm seeing students
wanting to do that with both hands. Dr. Van Buren, thank you so much. This was definitely inspiring. and I'm sure, the audience, would enjoy and appreciate every word you said. Thank you. Thank you so much for the opportunity
to reniew, our friendship and to talk about these issues
and to overlook, Beirut, which, despite everything
that's happened, is one of the most beguiling cities
I've ever been in. When Beirut gets in your blood,
it never disappears. Beirut always welcomes you with open arms. Thank you.
