'Good business' in Africa: governance of corporate responsibility

What is more significant in determining the social, environmental or governance impact of larger businesses operating in Africa -- their host government or their home government?

 

During our mid-September conference (see here and previous post), in the Africa political economy discussion group, one delegate asked whether firms from any particular countries were notable for generally doing 'good' (socially responsible) business.

 

We often field questions seeking to define and unlock the formula, strategy, approach, style of firms from Brazil, Turkey, China and so on increasingly doing business in Africa -- questions which assume that such firms display distinct, recognisable attributes on the basis of their national origin, or even that it is possible to attribute a single nationality to many larger firms. Implicit in such questions is often a sense that firms 'from' some jurisdictions are likely to be better corporate citizens abroad than others. A previous post noted that such claims are intuitively appealing but often lack empirical backing -- see here.

 

In reacting to the conference question my first sense was to say that the origin or home of a firm may not be as important as the will and ability of the host government to encourage or ensure responsible investment activities.

 

My particular interest lies in fragile and conflict-affected states. Here, even if interested in promoting responsible business conduct or able to spare the capacity to do so, such governments may fear that placing demands on firms would make the proposition of investing too onerous: it is hard enough attracting responsible firms to risky places (even if many activities to mitigate social impact would also reduce political risks).

 

In weakly governed settings the significance of self-regulation and non-state (or external) sources of regulation increases. That is -- to address the conference question -- the weaker the host government's regulatory capacity, the more the home origin of a firm may matter in terms of whether it feels pressure or inclination to act responsibly.

 

In theory, self-regulation can obviate the need for a capable state across both mandatory (but not enforced) and voluntary activities. For voluntary commitments this is especially, but perhaps really only, where there is sufficient alignment with core business objectives. Transitioning these undertakings to something more formal and systematic generally takes more than goodwill on the part of a single firm or pressure from certain groupings.

 

As a very good, short, recent paper points out, the governance of corporate responsibility -- call it the regulation of self-regulation -- may ultimately depend on the powers of a regulatory state. These powers and the incentives for using them vary across investment-sending and investment-receiving states: the prospects for doing 'good' business in African settings will very often depend on very localised factors and is more complex than labelling certain countries better at being good.

 

Jo