Companies need to (and can) do their part to “turn the tide” on corruption
The country is still digesting, with a queasy stomach, the revelations from JBS. If the Odebrecht plea bargain was already seen as “the end of the world”, what would this one be, then? Both involve the largest companies in their sectors and high-ranking politicians from the most varied parties.
The facts have led to an important debate about the side of power, with proposals to overhaul the party system, for example. Others target the sensitive politician-company interface, regarding campaign financing and the resulting favors.
All of this is being exhaustively discussed in the media, although things are moving at a very slow pace. Radical changes are needed, but they keep being postponed. The moment also calls for reflection on the companies' side, their role in this “symbiosis of evil”, and on radical changes, which, although they have not even begun, are also needed as soon as possible. Let's analyze some aspects.
On the one hand, we have companies whose founders or controlling shareholders allegedly deliberately adopted corrupt relations with those in power as a business model, in order to obtain all kinds of benefits, making their companies grow rapidly. Others allegedly organized themselves into cartels and colluded on ways to obtain overpriced contracts, buying the cooperation of those who should have prevented these arrangements. They would thus achieve high profits without needing to invest in efficiency. These models are matters for the police, not for management. Fortunately, they are beginning to be unmasked.
On the other hand, we have the vast majority of companies, which in principle seek to act ethically in the market, prospering through competence. The problem is that this determination is put to the test in the most diverse interactions with the State, which results in the system feeding itself in small and big things.
Some portray companies exclusively as victims: “There is no other way to do business”. I disagree. There are always choices, as long as one has solid principles and the determination to face the consequences. And they are not few. Therein lies the difficulty.
Let's start with the “wholesale” side. Companies whose businesses, on a large scale, depend on government contracts, financing or regulations. As a rule, they are pressured by agents: either they pay the “toll” or they will never win the contracts. Many play the game.
Some even end up liking it and go on to make it a source of additional profits. There are several proven cases in which executives of multinationals “explained” to their headquarters that, in Brazil, that's the way it has to be. A modern version of “there is no sin south of the equator”. The harder path of denouncing and seeking alternatives has so far been the exception. We hope the current environment will enable more companies to begin breaking through the siege.
An example of an alternative attitude can be drawn from political campaigns themselves, which generate millions for advertising professionals and are a big market for the sector. Some might argue that “there is no way not to play this game they impose on us”. Of course there is. Some renowned agencies and advertising professionals even have it as a principle not to work for politicians. Besides not wanting to “sell” a politician as a product to voters, they certainly want to stay away from the schemes that usually involve these campaigns.
Besides the “wholesale” side, we have the “retail” side of corruption. Although it moves smaller amounts, its capillarity generates damage that is perhaps even greater. Every company has found itself in a situation in which it depends on countless approvals from federal, state or municipal agencies. In each situation, the murky conditions of ambiguous regulations, delays and bureaucracy create opportunities for corruption, whether on the part of public officials, extorting bribes to grant approval, or on the part of companies, to get around fines or requirements they do not meet. How many managers have argued: “we'll pay a few tens of thousands of reais, but we'll avoid losing hundreds”.
A business logic of investment and return, but one that violates a non-negotiable value, which is one of the pillars of competitive companies: business ethics. Transgression in “small” things breeds a weakness of values that evolves into the “big” ones. Including corruption by employees against the company itself. The only way for a company to be profitable in an honest and sustainable way is by adding value for customers and becoming more efficient every day. There is no shortcut for this, and we hope the ones that exist will be closed.
I have no magic solution. It is not at all easy for a company or a businessperson to say no to the system. It takes a lot of courage. Sector-wide and group movements would help a lot. If the tap is turned off on one side, it will not gush on the other.
I don't know if I am being too naive in hoping that this will one day happen and that a great business movement will begin to change the game. Just as all of us, as citizens, hope that the political system will change. But all we can do is dream and do our part, pressuring politicians, but also changing our own attitudes day to day.
In general terms, only social movements will be able to demand a change in the environment of the relationship between politicians and companies. Within companies, we can also act, putting a stop to this way of operating, not accepting and denouncing any sign of corruption. In big and in small things.
