Facing public interest the ethical challenge to business policy and corporate communications

Facing Public Interest - Horizons of the Ethical ChaUenge on Business Clash of Civilizations or World Peace through Religious Peace.. 11 Business in Response to a Concerned Public - Eth

www.allitebooks.com

V O L U M E 8

Series Editors

Brian Harvey, Manchester Business School, U.K

Patricia Werhane, University of Virginia, USA

Editorial Board

Brenda Almond, University of Hull, Hull, U.K

Antonio Argandona, IESE, Barcelona, Spain

William C Frederick, University of Pittsburgh, U.S.A

Georges Enderle, University of Notre Dame, U.S.A

Norman E Bowie, University of Minnesota, U.S.A

Henk van Luijk, Nijenrode, Netherlands School of Business, Breukelen, The Netherlands

Horst Steinmann, University ofErlangen-Nurnberg, Nürnberg, Germany

The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume

www.allitebooks.com

Facing Public Interest The Ethical Challenge to

Business Policy and

Corporate Communications edited by

P E T ER U L R I C H

Chair of Business Ethics,

Director of the Institute for Business Ethics,

I S B N 978-0-7923-3634-1 I S B N 978-94-011-0399-2 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-0399-2

Printed on acid-free paper

A l l Rights Reserved

© 1995 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1995

Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1995

No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,

including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and

retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner

www.allitebooks.com

PREFACE

This volume has grown out of the seventh conference of the European Business Ethics Network (EBEN) at the University of St Gallen from September 14-16,

1994 On behalf of EBEN, the Institut for Wirtschaftsethik (Institute for Business

Ethics) at the University of St Gallen has initiated and organized this

interna-tional conference together with REs PUBUCA - Association for Responsibility

in Business, a group of Swiss entrepreneurs and managers who commit

them-selves to promoting an ethically based way of doing business Three other academic institutes cooperated in the organizing body of the conference: the Institute for Social Ethics and the Institute for Research in Business Administra-tion, both at the University of Zurich, and the Institute for Research in Marketing and Distribution at the University of St Gallen Last not least, the conference was effectively supported by the Swiss Federation of Commerce and Industry, and by the former President of the Swiss National Assembly, Mr Ulrich Bremi The name of the association «Res Publica» corresponds with the guiding idea of the EBEN Conference '94 and also of this book: Nowadays, doing business is never just a «private» matter but in many ways a «public affair.» Free enterprise has to serve public purposes and to be accountable to the general public as far as the «public cause» (res publica) is affected by the implications and outcomes of business activities In short: Responsible business of today means Facing Public Interest Under this general topic, the conference aimed

- first, at lighting up advanced conceptual ideas of how business policy and

<<public relations» should respond to the public expectations of the time being

in an ethically and economically sound way, and at discussing such ideas

from different points of view (business leaders, representatives of concerned citizens' groups, and academics from the fields of political philosophy, social and business ethics);

secorully, at presenting and analysing practical experiences of companies and Public Relations consultants with innovative approaches to business policy

and corporate communications in different branches facing a specially concerned public (chemistry, banking, engineering and car industry, and others) with respect to ecological or social challenges

v

www.allitebooks.com

The present volume contains a systematically arranged selection of the most topical and instructive speeches and papers given at the conference The selected contributions have been carefully revised Our primary thanks go to the authors for their pleasant cooperation and help to our editorial work

Moreover, we are indebted to so many persons who gave strong support

in different ways to make possible the event of the conference and of this volume that we cannot express our gratitude to all of them by personally naming them Therefore, we cannot avoid another selection as for some special ack-nowledgements Let us begin with thanks to the members of the Programme Committee: Marie Bohata (Prague), Sheena Carmichael (London), Hans Ruh (Zurich), Alphons Schnyder (Zurich) as representative of «Res Publica», and Horst Steinmann (Nuremberg) for their support in the programme development and paper evaluation We also say thank you to Henk van Luijk, EBEN chair (Nijenrode), and the entire EBEN Executive Committee for their help and their confidence in our - maybe sometimes a little bit wilful - programmatic ideas and organizational structures

We address especially cordial thanks to all colleagues and friends of the organizing institutions who did so much for the whole project, above all to Maria Luise Hilber, President of «Res Publica» (Zurich), for her great and never-ending commitment to our common cause, and to Bruno Staffelbach from the Institute for Research in Business Administration (Zurich) who contributed much to the evaluation of the papers In this thanks, we include all the other members of

«Res Publica» and the whole organizing body who contributed with numberless efforts and activities to the final outcomes We cannot name every one of them but we would like to render prominent two persons who took a special respon-sibility in the local organizing team: Susanne Zajitschek (St Gallen) who kept full of humour even in times of «crash management», and last not least Margrit Ruckstuhl, the secretary of the Institute for Business Ethics who mastered all the technical and administrative tasks before, during and after the conference

as well as during the busy production of this volume in superior and always pleasant style

St Gallen, May 1995 Peter Ulrich

Charles Sarasin

www.allitebooks.com

Facing Public Interest - Horizons of the Ethical ChaUenge on Business

Clash of Civilizations or World Peace through Religious Peace 11

Business in Response to a Concerned Public - Ethical Foundations

The General Public as the Locus of Ethics in Modem Society 43

Corporate Dialogue and Public Relations - Critical Issues

What Happens if Small Challenges Big? 131

Regine Tiemann and Susanne Zajitschek

A Survey of Moral Conflicts among Norwegian Public 167 Relations Professionals

Johannes Brinkmann and Hans Gudmund Tvedt

Part V:

Ecological Challenges and Business Response - Examples and

Experiences

Corporate Responsibility and Hazardous Technology: 185

An Example of the Interaction Process Between Industry

and Society

Brian Harvey and Neil D Stewart

www.allitebooks.com

Environmentally Responsible Business Strategy: 199 Packaging Company's Response to a Critical Challenge

Family Issues of Employees: The Case of Excel Industries, Inc 241

- A Conflict with Public Perceptions in

the United States

in a comprehensive social and political philosophy And any possible legal design

of such an institution has to be constituted and legitimized by a public procedure Indeed, free enterprise may be «private» in a legal sense, as far as property rights are concerned However, most business activities have widespread and far-reaching impacts upon society as a whole Obviously, unintended implications

of entrepreneurial decisions - such as increasing unemployment because of industrial productivity improvement, or environmental pollution resultant from economic growth - tum business policy more and more into a public issue This leads to a growing public exposure of «private» business in our difficult decade I

Today, companies are exposed to growing societal expectations and at the same time to harsh economic requirements Management finds itself in the limelight

of public criticism and in the centre of multiple conflicts of claims and values Which of them deserve to be preferred and which to be postponed? Who is authorized to define the public interest? And how far is business morally obliged

to be engaged in social commitments?

I T DylIick (1989): Management der Umweltbeziehungen Qffentliche Auseinandersetzungen als Herausforderung Wiesbaden: Gabler; R.E Miles (1987): Managing the Corporate Social Environment Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall

1

P Ulrich and C Sarasin (eds.), Facing Public Interest, 1-8

To be able to cope with these fundamental challenges, entrepreneurs and managers of today need an appropriate understanding of the relationship between the firm and society as a whole, i.e of the public relations of the company in

a genuine and undiluted sense of the term The point of departure for obtaining such an understanding is the basic conception of the company itself

1 The Company as a Quasi-public Institution

Traditional ideas of the «free enterprise system» are no longer sufficient as guidelines for an ethically responsible as well as economically sound way of doing business If business activities usually have impacts on the quality of life

of many people in various aspects, the company can hardly be considered any longer as a private arrangement that meets its public obligations only by maxi-mizing its profits This traditional philosophy of «private enterprise» presupposes

a basic harmony between private and public interest, which is not the case as far as there are growing conflicts about the priorities of economic, social and ecological ends The «invisible hand» (Adam Smith) of the market is not an

adequate guarantor for fair and just solutions to societal conflicts of values, because purchasing power, not moral reasons, decides about the socioeconomic results of the «market game.»

Moreover, the free market system does not exist for its own purposes only;

it has to be embedded in the basic norms and rules of a free and democratic society and to operate in the service of this society Freedom of trade is not

a natural right of business but founded on the moral and legal constitution of society Accordingly, business depends on its public legitimation and acceptance There is no such thing as «free enterprise» without responsibility and accoun-tability to the community So, «private» business is only legitimate and granted within a basic consensus by all citizens about the normative «rules of the game,»

i.e the political framework of the market system And this is on no account

a politically «leftist» vision but corresponds to an essential principle of a free society as such, because free citizens do not have to put up with interferences

in their private lives by others as long as they have not approved of them, based

on a fair contract or agreement

As a result, today's company or corporation has to be understood as a public institution 2 which is

quasi expected to create values of different kinds according to a variety of societal needs (as its public junction), and

2 P Ulrich (1977): Die GrossunternehmWlg als quasi-o.ffentliche Institution Stuttgart:

Poeschel

obliged to be responsible and accountable not only to its owners but to the general public as well (as the way of its public legitimation)

This is why business policy cannot truly be judged socially responsible as long

as it «responds» only to market requirements but not to moral questions of the concerned public Corporate social responsibility cannot be separated from public responsiveness, i.e the willingness of the management to give good reasons

to all those affected by the company's decisions Yet the question is: which are good reasons in an ethical sense?

2 The General Public as the ultimate «Locus of Morality» for Business

Without doubt, the public responsiveness of the business company and, as a result, its credibility and reputation have become a prerequisite as essential for its long-term success as the cleverness of its market strategies However, what matters from an ethical point of view is to surmount a conventional management view of the public as simply another - and mostly irksome! - stakeholder of

the company, beside other parties concerned, as owners and employees,

custom-ers and supplicustom-ers Stakeholdcustom-ers usually defend only their particular interests,

whereas the role ofthe general public is quite a different one It has to be seen

as the figurative place where, in principle, it is possible to find out what the

general interest really is In a modem and democratic society of free citizens,

there is no other moral authority than the «reasoning public» itself, as Kant3

called it In other words: The unlimited forum of the general public is the locus

of morality where free and mature citizens come together to argue about fair

rules and just standards of their living together.4

This Kantian idea of the public use of reason is, of course, very different

from the common Hobbesian perspective of politics as a mere procedure of

bargaining for a mutually advantageous contract between all interested parties.5

In this latter view, the individuals or groups act in a strictly strategic way to

3 I Kant (1783): Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Autkliirung?, in: Immanuel Kant gabe (1968), Vol XI Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 53-61

Werkaus-4 P UlrichlU Thielemann (1992): Ethik und Erfolg BernlStuttgartlVienna: Haupt, 161ff

5 The Hobbesian view, originated by Thomas Hobbes in his famous Leviathan (1651), forms

nowadays the paradigm of neoclassical economics and Institutional Economics, whose axiomatic base is methodological individualism The strictest elaboration of that (neoliberal) paradigm of pure economic rationality has been achieved by 1.M Buchanan (1975): The Limits of Liberty Between Anarchy and Leviathan, Chicago/London, and in his later books

For a detailed critique of this way of politico-economic thinking cf P Ulrich (1995): Die Zukunft der Marktwirtschaft: neoliberaler oder ordoliberaler Weg? Eine wirtschaftsethische Perspektive Archiv for Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 81, Beiheft 62

maximize their self-interests, whereas the ideal of the <<reasoning public» poses human beings arguing on an ethical basis, i.e., from a perspective of mutual respect for the inviolable moral rights and duties of all persons, without

presup-regard to their bargaining power or economic resources

Thus, the notion of the general public as a locus of morality brings into focus an advanced ethical point of view, reviving the philosophical tradition

of republicanism as it has been elaborated again by Immanuel Kant and his

scholars.6 The core idea of republican philosophy is that politics has to be sidered as res publica, as a matter of free citizens' public commitment in a spirit

con-of co-responsibility for the protection con-of human and civil rights, social justice and the common weal The unbiased, undistorted and unlimited «pUblicity» (Kant) of all politically relevant activities is recognized as a conditio sine qua non, an indispensable precondition of modem society

Of course, this is - philosophically spoken - just a regulative principle and,

as such, not at all a statement of factual politics but rather a criterion for ethical criticism against the usual political proceedings, which are nowadays frequently dominated by an excess of special interests' lobbyism, far from any republican ethos All the more, it is important that the «reasoning public» takes the counterpart of exerting a certain moral pressure on all agents to care about the

legitimacy of their acitivities Its peculiar power consists in nothing else than moral reasoning Again it was Kant who in his famous essay «Beantwortung

der Frage: Was ist AufkUirung?» (<<In answer to the question: What is ment?») made the point:

Enlighten-«It is difficult for any single person to work his or her way out of the maturity that has nearly become our nature But it is more likely that a

im-public enlightens itself Indeed, this is almost inevitable if only the liberty

(of public reasoning, P.U.) is granted.»7

3 Corporate Communications as Corporate Dialogue

Now, what does that mean for business policy? The crucial point is, of course, the growing public relevance of the corporation as outlined above Consequently, the «reasoning public» also proves to be the ultimate «locus of morality» for

6 Kant (1795): Zum ewigen Frieden, in: Werkausgabe (1968),Vol XI, 191-251, especially

204ff

Kant (1783), Werkausgabe (1968), Vol XI, 54 (own transl., P.U.)

business as well as for any other good citizen.8 Therefore, managers should not look any longer at the public, especially at those citizens who are concerned

about business' impacts on the «res publica,» as a mere stakeholder with special

interests that have or have not to be taken into account, just according to cost

and benefits for the company itself - this conventional stakeholder model is exactly based on the Hobbesian concept of a purely strategic way of bargaining and contracting Instead, managers should learn to recognize concerned citizens

as indispensable partners to ensure the legitimacy of their business activities

After all, concerned citizens who advance good moral reasons for or against

a business policy or strategy that is under consideration might tum out be true

friends who can help the managers to become fully aware of their moral

respon-sibilities and thereby to preserve the company's public credibility

This slight change of perspective will result in a major revision of the propriate approach to Public Relations and Corporate Communications towards

ap-an ethically enlightened conception of corporate dialogue 9 By the way, this guiding idea corresponds with the ethics of discourse, which represents a continuation of Kantian ethics of practical reason after the «language-pragmatic»

turn in practical philosophy 10

Here is not the place to start a discussion about the philosophical foundations

of discursive ethics and its importance for economic thinking I I Let's take it mediately to the essential point concerning our common social behaviour: As long as we look at other people who are concerned about our affairs only in

im-a strim-ategic wim-ay, we will probim-ably perceive them im-as our enemies because their

public criticism might damage the success of our private plans and, therefore,

we will try to reduce that criticism to silence, like an inconvenient noise or a false alarm that, of course, we do not appreciate at all Unlike that, we will look

in a completely different way at the criticism by good friends of ours, since

8 P Ulrich (1993): Wirtschaftsethik als Beitrag zur Bildung mtindiger Wirtschaftsbtirger Zur Frage nach dem <Ort) der Moral in der Marktwirtschaft Ethica, 1, 227-250

9 H SteinmannlA.ZerfaB (1993): Corporate Dialogue - a new perspective for Public Relations Business Ethics - A Europan Review, 2, 58-63 For the general idea of an

ethically based corporate dialogue cf P Ulrich (1981): Wirtschaftsethik und U mungsverfassung: Das Prinzip des unternehmungspolitischen Dialogs, in: H Ulrich (ed.):

ntemeh-Management-Philosophie for die ZukunJt, Bern/Stuttgart: Haupt, 57-75; P Ulrich (183):

Konsensus-Management: Die zweite Dimension rationaler Unternehmensfiihrung wirtschaJtliche Forschung und Praxis, 35, 70-84

Betriebs-\0 K.-O Apel (1973): Transformation der Philosophie, Vol 2: Das Apriori der tionsgemeinschaJt Frankfurt: Suhrkamp; K.-O Apel (1988): Diskurs und Verantwortung

Kommunika-Frankfurt: Suhrkamp; 1 Habermas (1983): Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Bandeln

Frankfurt: Suhrkamp; J Habermas (1991): Erlauterungen zur Diskursethik Frankfurt:

Suhrkamp

II P Ulrich (1986): Transformation der 6konomischen Vernunft Bern/Stuttgart/Vienna: Haupt

3rd rev edition 1993

we have probably learnt from earlier experience that their critical questions or comments, though not always quite comfortable for us, can be stimulating for making up our mind and finally taking the right decisions

The same is true for business policy and its relationship to a concerned public For that reason, Corporate Communications obtain a new and significant

function: They are no longer only a strategy of one-way communication from the company's «speaker» to the public in order to put the firm's activities in the best light, as it was the purpose of conventional PR Now, corporate com-munications become a conceptual frame for undertaking a real dialogue between the company and its concerned «friends» in the general public - for the purpose

that both sides of this dialogue can learn much about the problems and chances

of ethically based management In the end, this might open a responsible as well as practicable way of/acing up to public interest in business policy

4 An Outline of tbe Present Volume

Part I of the book will take into consideration some essential dimensions of

the ethical challenge on today's business by public issues First, the

international-ly known ecumenical theologian Hans Kiing, University of Tiibingen, argues

for his courageous project of a minimal «world ethic» between all cultures and religions on earth - he proposes, so to speak, an urgent antidote against the expanding cultural and ethical relativism, which is lastly incompatible with the basic moral ideas of humanity Hans Ruh, theologian and social ethicist at the

University of Zurich, works out the major human and social problems of our time and what they mean as a fundamental challenge of business Thilo Bode,

Executive Director of Greenpeace Germany, goes more in details with regard

to the ecological challenge and defines an advanced mental attitude of managers

to the environmentally concerned public

In Part II, three academic teachers of political and/or business ethics throw

a light on the ethical foundations of a sound relationship beween business and the concerned public Adela Cortina, ethicist and political philosopher at

Valencia, elaborates the role of the general public outlined above as the decisive locus of morality in modem society in general and its meaning for business ethics in particular She explains the Kantian roots of the regulative idea of «the public use of reason» and discusses its interpretations by John Rawls and Jiirgen Habermas Then, Ronald Jeurissen, Tilburg University, gives a clear survey

of three different social philosophies of business and the corresponding tives of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and the public

perspec-He argues for an «interpenetration view of the business-society relationship» and shows its systematic consequences for a responsible «business community.»

As a perfect completion of this part, Peter Pratley from the University of

Groningen draws our attention to the strategic market activities as the field where business responsibility must ultimately find its concrete manifestation He ex-emplifies his perspective of corporate moral commitment and accountability before the public on the basis of the Total Quality Management concept

In Part III, three top managers of three Swiss-based multinational

corpora-tions respond to the public challenge from inside the boardroom, supported by

a former British top manager who has now specialized in advising his previous colleagues with respect to corporate community relations First, Andres F Leuenberger, Deputy Chairman of Roche and at the same time President of the

Swiss Federation of Commerce and Industry, makes clear that industry today has recognized public acceptance as a prerequisite vital for the credibility of any industrial acitivity; he affirms an open two-way communication between industry and the concerned public Walter G Frehner, Chairman of the Swiss

Bank Corporation, agrees with that and presents four basic principles guiding the concept of «corporate dialogue» in SBC's business policy Andreas Steiner,

member of the executive committee and CEO of a major division of Asea Brown Bovery Switzerland, underlines the ethical aspects of ABB's «Customer Focus» philosophy and its corresponding communication policy Finally, Gerry Wade,

Public Affairs management counsellor and former head of Public Affairs at IBM (U.K.), deals with Corporate Community Involvement as one of the great challenges in the near future He discusses whether ethics has a «constituency» among the corporation's stakeholders and how to make ethics a strong issue

in the boardroom

Part IV brings into focus the consequences of the idea of corporate dialogue

for an advanced philosophy of Public Relations and Corporate Communications and considers its bearing under several aspects Maya Doetzkies, representative

of the Berne Declaration, a civil action group concerned with the behaviour of multinational corporations in developing countries, points at the rhetorical use

of language in the business world and argues for the importance of a critique

of these business rhetorics from a holistic and moral point of view as a basic task of concerned citizens' groups; otherwise an unbiased public reasoning cannot take place Walter G Pielken, President of an international consulting group

specialized in Corporate Communications, draws from his rich experiences with the «handling» of the critical public and the media by companies in crisis situ-ations; his conclusions strongly support the advantages of an ethically sound approach to corporate dialogue Regine Tiemann and Susanne Zajitschek, both doctoral students in the field of business ethics, take up discursive ethics as a basic paradigm for responsible Public Relations and throw a light on the especially important dialogue between corporations in order to promote industry-wide ethical standards and policies Finally, Johannes Brinkmann from the

Norwegian School of Management and Hans Gudmund Tvedt, Public Relations

Consultant at Burson-Marsteller, present fresh empirical results of a pilot survey that tried to find typical moral conflicts of PR professionals as well as their moral self-conception, which is obviously essential as a basis to put responsible

PR conceptions into practice

The two remaining parts of the book present concrete examples and periences with ethical challenges in different branches and fields Part V con-

ex-centrates on the ecological challenge Brian Harvey and Neil D Stewart, both

from Manchester Business School, focus on the highly topical problems of corporate dialogue and responsibility in a case of «hazardous technology» and develop five general principles for responsible management in this area Minna Halme, University of Tampere, examines how a Finnish company in the paper

and packaging industry mastered the environmental challenge and the public scrutiny by way of a profound change of its business strategy and communication policy Ralph Saemann, former member of the executive board ofCiba-Geigy

and now Vice Chairman of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences, gives

a first-hand report on the pioneer experiences with corporate dialogue concerning the project of Ciba's newly erected incinerator for special waste in Basel Jost Wirz, president of a success full Advertising and Public Relations group, presents

his professional ethics regarding the field of tensions between consumer tions and ecological requirements, which is certainly a key-point in order to move ahead towards a sustainable market economy

expecta-Part VI turns to social challenges in the external as well as the internal

relations of the company David Mathison, Loyola Marymount University,

discusses the results of his interviews with top executives representing six major European aircraft manufacturers about the question whether European companies, facing global competition, can preserve or have to abandon traditional social democratic values in the workplace James S O'Rourke, University of Notre

Dame, analyses the case of Excel Industries Inc., a supplier to the car industry, dealing with community relations and corporate communications in a difficult situation when the company's child-care center had to be closed Last not least,

Jilrgen Deller, Manager of Corporate Executive Management Development at

Daimler-Benz, and Stefan Jepsen from the Institute for Economic and Social

Ethics in Rostock, present a pilot project at Daimler-Benz concerning the question of how moral responsibility can finally become an integral and central part in the career development of managers and in the overall personnel policy

of a corporation

CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

OR WORLD PEACE THROUGH RELIGIOUS PEACE

1 World Ethos - The Opposite of Church Moralism

Who, like I am, is concerned about the credibility of especially the Catholic church, cannot hide their shame when facing the Vatican's manoeuvres before and during the conference in Cairo:

- the Vatican played down the importance of the globally urgent question of population explosion in an incomprehensible way;

- that the Vatican - having only observer status at the UN - blocked a whole conference for five days and turned it into a sterile debate on abortion;

- that the Vatican wanted to push through a rigoristic, one-sided point of view concerning abortion that is unacceptable even within its own church;

- that even after the conference the Vatican dismisses just that method as moral that could prevent abortion most effectively, namely contraceptive devices

im-Is this supposed to be the new world ethos? No, this is only old church moralism Instead of distinguishing oneself in the middle of such a mass agglomeration as Cairo with its approx 15 million people through positive con-cepts of damming in the catastrophic population explosion, the conference was intentionally pushed into the morally shady twilight For many delegates, the

11

P Ulrich and C Sarasin (eds.) Facing Public interest 11-27

www.allitebooks.com

argumentation of the papal delegates bordered on demagogy and brainwashing

of the people Even when, after five days of discussions, the conference agreed

on a reasonable draft of a compromise for the EU which presented abortion

as an unsuitable method for family planning (and rightly so), the Vatican still wasn't satisfied, but unable to block the conference any further Worried over the negative image and to veil its defeat, the Vatican formally agreed to the paper in parts - different from the conference on population in Budapest 20 years ago and from the one in Mexico 10 years ago, but it still stuck unteachably

to its anachronistic views

But the following question is more important: Why was the Vatican unable

to prevail? The factors are:

- The decision-making authorities of the UN, the US and of the EU were not intimidated

- The sanctimonious purposive alliance between the Vatican and the Islamic world did not come off The great Islamic nations like Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran and Egypt wouldn't let themselves be put to the Vatican's carriage

- Despite worldwide agitation, the Vatican diplomacy won over only a few small Latin American countries and Muslim states, but not the big countries like Brazil, Argentina and Mexico

- Contrary to what had been expected in Rome, Catholic women ofthe various delegations did not support the Pope

- Long before, the Pope had lost the battle over sexual morals in his own church

But how is it possible that a single man can think of having to oppose the whole world, as his press spokesman, the Opus Dei-member Joaquin Navarro-Valls, wrote in the Wall street Journal (1.9.l992): though «largely isolated and alone,» but «courageous enough to be firm where everybody else makes com-promises about the essential dignity of man.» How can one man conceive of the idea that he alone knows what truth, morals and the «essential dignity» of man are, especially with regard to such difficult questions as contraception and abortion?

The real reason for such a conflict and for the defeat of the Vatican is the

Roman system itself: this absolutist medieval system, grown more inflexible

through Reformation and Counter-Reformation finally pushed itself into a corner because of its permanent fight against the modern age After the fall of Soviet communism, this system has become the only dictatorial system in the Western world, shaped by a specifically Roman moralism, dogmatism and authoritarian-ism

But a Catholic theologian, having just spent a number of years to formulate

a critical evaluation of twenty centuries of Christianity, knows what he is talking about: This Roman system with its monopoly on truth and morals theologically stands on feet of clay! The Pope's exorbitant teaching authority cannot be justi-

fied through Biblical origins nor through the old Catholic tradition And a Pope who infallibly and unteachably means to keep this authority up against the ma-jority of his own Catholic people and, finally, against the global community itselfwill remain «largely isolated and alone,» will, in fact, become an originator

of schisms, will become a source for suspicion and anti-Catholic feelings inside many non-Christian churches, will become a perpetual burden and block for many of the global community's most urgently issues

But let's be done with these critical, though unfortunately necessary, ions! If I am to present my own issues here in a credible way, I had to place myself outside of this moralising abuse of religious authority that has devastating consequences not only for the image of the Catholic church but for that of all religions in the world However, criticizing the Vatican's policy does not at all justifY the world of politics in general So now to:

We all know that in the course of the French Revolution, the wars of the princes

became wars of the nations And with the end of modernity the wars of the

nations became wars of the ideologies Just consider:

- 1918 had already offered our century afirst opportunity to replace the world

of nationalistic modernity which had collapsed with the First World War with

a new more peaceful world order However, this was prevented by the ideologies

of Fascism, Communism, National Socialism and Japanism, all of which had their foundations in modernity In retrospect they proved catastrophic false developments even for their supporters and set the whole world back by decades Instead of a new world order there was world chaos

- Then in 1945 the second opportunity for a new world order was missed

(be-cause of the obstruction (be-caused by the Stalinist Soviet Union) Instead of a new world order there was a division of the world

- In 1989 all these reactionary ideologies (including that of a self-righteous anti-Communism) came to an end; the age of the great ideologies seems to be over Again a new world order was propagated, though nothing was done to-wards realizing it The wars (the Gulf War followed by the war in the Balkans) brought people back to earth So has this third opportunity already been wasted?

Instead of a new world order do we now have a new world disorder? Some say that a new world disorder can be avoided provided that we do not act in an «idealistic» way F or world order comes about only through a «real politics» which coolly calculates and implements national interests, unhampered

by all too many «moral feelings.» Thus the undoubtedly knowledgable and skilled politician and political theorist Henry Kissinger, who has already practised

such «real politics» for many years and is now eloquently propagating them again in his most recent book, Diplomacy.1 Indeed this former Security Adviser and Secretary of State to President Nixon does not admire American politicians like Jefferson and Franklin, who aimed at a balance of ideals and interests, as much as European power politicians like Richelieu, Metternich and Bismarck Kissinger ironically remarks: «No other nation (than the United States) has ever based its claim to international leadership on its altruism.»2 Moreover President Nixon, whom he advised, is praised as the first «realistic» president since Theodore Roosevelt (the main representative of American expansionist policy!), while even now derogatory remarks are made about the peace movement against the Vietnam war

But has not the «real politics» practised by all the historical figures tioned above also long faded into the twilight? At any rate, Nixon's «real politics» led not only to a long overdue openness towards China but also to the prolongation of the Vietnam War by four years (at the cost of20,492 Ameri-can and around 160,000 South Vietnamese lives) and to its extension to Cambodia (with countless deaths) 3 The consequence was increasingly vigorous public protests, and paranoia in the White House - ending in Watergate and Nixon's impeachment So we can follow Walter Isaacson, Kissinger's critical biographer, when on the one hand he emphasizes his «respect» for Kissinger's

men-«brilliance as an analyst» but on the other expresses his «reservations» about the «lower priority» which Kissinger attaches to the «values» which have made the American democracy such a powerful international force.4 By Kissinger's new book Isaacson sees his conclusive evaluation of Kissinger's «Realpolitik» confirmed:

«Kissinger's power-oriented realism and focus on national interests faltered because it was too dismissive of the role of morality The secret bombing and then invasion of Cambodia, the Christmas bombing of Hanoi, the de-stabilization of Chile - these and other brutal actions betrayed a callous attitude toward what Americans like to believe is the historic foundation

of their foreign policy: a respect for human rights, international law, democracy, and other idealistic values The setbacks Kissinger encountered

as a statesman, and the antagonism he engendered as a person, stemmed from the perceived amorality of his geopolitical calculations - Kissinger's

I Kissinger, H (1994): Diplomacy New York

2 Kissinger (1994)

3 Sheehan, N (1994): Nixon's 'Peace' Strategy had a Heavy Price in Blood International Herald Tribune, 30 April; Lewis, A (1994): 20492 Reasons Kissinger Was Wrong Interna- tional Herald Tribune, 7 June

Isaacson, W (1994): How the World Works Time Magazine, 2 May

approach led to a backlash against detente; the national mood swung toward both the moralism of Jimmy Carter and the ideological fervor of Ronald Reagan As a result, not unlike Metternich, Kissinger's legacy turned out

to be one of brilliance more than solidity, of masterful structures built of bricks that were made without straw.»5

But has not the American democracy in particular shown that it has always combined the pursuit of national interests with the propagation of values and ideals? Has American foreign policy ever been completely detached from moral values and ideals which are ultimately anchored in religion? So need interests and ideals necessarily be opposites? Indeed, it is in the interest of a realistic policy for this real world to find through ideas and visions a way out of the crises which it has itself produced This is valid also for the Balkans, where the moral tragedy of the two-tongued Western «Realpolitik» severely shook the political credibility of the EU, the USA and the United Nations, a policy which is unnecessarily prolonging the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people But will not wars also be inevitable in the future?

striking article «The Clash ofCivilizations?»6 (By civilizations Huntington,

fol-lowing Arnold Toynbee,1 understands the «cultural groupings» which extend beyond regions and nations These are defined both by the objective elements

of language, history, religion, customs and institutions and by the subjective self-identification of men and women) According to Huntington there are today eight «civilizations» (with possible sub-civilizations): Western, Confucian, Japa-nese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and African So in the future we are to expect political, economic and military conflicts, say, between Islamic civilization and the West or Confucian Asiatic civilization and the West, possibly combined with an «Islamic-Confucian connection» of the kind that can, already be seen in the constant flow of weapons from China and North

S Isaacson, W.lKissinger, A (1992): Biography New York, 766

6 Huntington, S.P (1993a): The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72, 22-49

Toynbee, A.: The Study of History Yols I-XII, Oxford 1934-61

Korea to the Middle East «The next world war, if there is one, will be a war between civilizations.»8

In the discussion9 which has taken place so far, especially in America, ington has been accused of interpreting political and economic conflicts a priori

Hunt-as ethnic and cultural conflicts and giving them a religious charge (Hunt-as the gious Saddam Hussein attempted retrospectively to do in the Gulf War, adopting

un-reli-a cynicun-reli-al tun-reli-actic) Here un-reli-a distinction must be mun-reli-ade: of course most conflicts, from Berg Karabach through the Gulf War and Bosnia to Kashmir, are not primarily about civilization and religion but about territories, raw materials, trade and money, in other words are for economic, political and military interests But Huntington is right: the ethnic and religious rivalries form the constant underly- ing structures for territorial disputes, political interests and economic competi-

tion, structures by which political, economic and military conflicts can be justified, inspired and intensified at any time So, while the great civilizations

do not necessarily seem to me to be the dominant paradigm for the political

controversies of the new world epoch, which Huntington thinks has replaced the Cold War paradigm and the First-Second-Third World scheme, it is the

deeper cultural dimension to all antagonisms and conflicts between peoples

which are always there and are in no way to be neglected

But when it comes to this cultural dimension, we would do better to begin from the great religions (and their different paradigms) instead offrom civi- lizations, which are often difficult to define In fact even Huntington is using

the religions to define civilizations when he speaks of an Islamic, Hindu, Confucian or Slavic-Orthodox civilization But can one separate Orthodox Christianity as a distinctive civilization from «Western» Christianity, as Toynbee

already did? And can one distinguish Western North American and Latin American civilization so sharply? However, Huntington must be said to be right

on two decisive points:

- As Toynbee already noted, contrary to all superficial politicians and Political theorists, who overlook the depth-dimension in world political conflicts, the

religions are to be given a fundamental role in world politics.1O

- Religions are not growing (as Toynbee thought) into a single unitary religion with Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist elements in the service of a single human society It is much more realistic also to take into account their potential for conflict as rivals: «Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in

8 Huntington (l993a), 39

9 Cf the critical responses to Huntington by Ajami, F.lBartley, R.L.lBinyan, L./Kirkpatrick,

J 1lMahbubani, K (1993), Foreign Affairs, 72, No.4 (September/October) and Huntington's

(1993b) Response, No.5 (November/December), 186-94

Huntington (I993b), 191f., 194

world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations.»!!

Indeed, it will strike anyone who is not blind to history that the modem state frontiers in Eastern Europe (and in part also in Africa) seem to pale in comparison with those age-old frontiers which were once drawn by peoples,

religions and confessions: between Armenia and Azerbaijan, between Georgia and Russia, between the Ukraine and Russia, and also between the different peoples in Yugoslavia According to Huntington, we shall also have to reckon

in thefoture with conflicts between civilizations «Such conflicts also threaten

in the future; indeed, we must fear that the most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another.»!2 Why? Not only for geopolitical reasons: because the world is

becoming smaller and smaller, the interactions between people of different vilizations are becoming increasingly numerous, and the significance of the re-gional economic blocks is becoming increasingly important But also for reasons

ci-of culture and religiOUS politics:

1 because the differences between the civilizations are not only real but fundamental, often age-old and all-embracing, from the upbringing of children and the constitution of the state to the understanding of nature and God;

2 because many people are once again reflecting on their religious roots

as a result of the cultural alienation and disillusionment with the West brought about by the process of economic and social modernization;

3 because human cultural characteristics and differences are less variable and dispensable than political and economic characteristics and differences (an Azerbaijani cannot become an Armenian and vice versa) and even more because religion divides men and women even more sharply and exclusively than membership ofa people: «A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simul-taneously even a citizen of two countries It is more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim.»13 Particularly among peoples who are related in religion (what H.D.S Greenway calls the «kin-country syndrome»), e.g between Orthodox Serbs, Russians and Greeks, religion plays a role which cannot be neglected Countries where large parts of the population come from different civili-zations, like the former Soviet Union or former Yugoslavia, can disintegrate

in such conflicts Other countries like Turkey, Mexico and Russia, which are culturally to some degree a unity but are inwardly at odds over which civilization they belong to (<<tom countries»), will be caused the greatest difficulties in any cultural reorientation that is necessary And in view of the possibility of such

II Huntington (1993a), 22

12 Huntington (l993a), 25

Huntington (1993a), 27

conflicts between civilizations and religions, does not the future of humankind look extremely gloomy? How are we to react to this situation?

4 The Alternative: Peace Between the Religions

Not without justification, Huntington has been accused of a deep pessimism and even an irresponsible fatalism; if conflicts in the future are to be primarily conflicts between civilizations, then these are as it were given by nature and therefore even unavoidable; in that case the future of humankind will be constant, endless war Indeed, in that case, there would ultimately and inevitably be a Third World War of civilizations which would necessarily lead to the end of our human race Is there no alternative to this?

Huntington, too, is of the opinion that these conflicts of civilizations must

be avoided Not just by short-term strategies In the longer term it is necessary

to accommodate those non-Western civilizations which are preserving their ditional values and cultures and yet want to modernize themselves, and whose economic and military power will doubtless further increase Huntington calls for this long-term strategy not only to maintain the economic and military power

tra-of the West in order to protect its own interests Rather, his whole analysis culminates in a demand which is unusual for a political theorist (it was then taken up by Jacques Delors, then President of the EC Commission 14), «to develop

a deeper understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying the other civilizations and the ways in which people in those civi-lizations see their interest It will require an effort to identifY elements of commonality between Western and other civilizations.»15 But there is only this one sentence

This can be seen as support for this project on «The Religious Situation

of our Time» under the slogan «No world peace without religious peace.» For

in this project I am pursuing a strategy which is meant to prevent the «clash

of civilizations.» My starting point is:

Without peace between the religions, war between the civilizations No peace among the religions without dialogue between the religions No dialogue

14 J Delors, President of the EC Commission, is also convinced that «future conflicts will

be sparked by cultural factors rather than economics or ideology.» And he warns: «The West needs to develop a deeper understanding ofthe religious and philosophical assump- tions underlying other civilizations, and the way other nations see their interests, to identifY what we have in common» (quoted in Huntington 1993b, 194)

Huntington (1993a), 49

between the religions without investigation of the foundations of the ions

relig-The analyses of the political theorist can partly be confirmed by those of the theologian, but at the same time they must be partly differentiated:

- Ifwe recognize that Western and Eastern Christianity do not represent two religions/civilizations but two different constellations, albeit very different, two paradigms of the one Christianity (the convergence of, and mutual understanding between, which had already been considerably advanced by John XXIII, the Second Vatican Council and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople), then

we can also recognize that in particular an ecumenical understanding between the churches (in Yugoslavia, the Ukraine, between Rome and Moscow) could have prepared for understanding between the ethnic groups there (Why should what was possible between French and Germans be impossible, say, between Serbs and Croats?)

- Ifwe work out that even three religions like Judanism, Christianity and Islam, which historically have been in constant confrontation, nevertheless have numer-ous features of faith and even more of ethics in common, then we need not give

up hope that the tensions which have naturally always existed between religions and civilizations will not necessarily lead to a clash, even to a military collision Peace is possible (Why should not an agreement like that between Israelis and Palestinians also be possible between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, Indians and Pakistanis?)

5 The Dispute in World History Between Power and Morality

If Western politicians, diplomats and lawyers had a better knowledge of the

other religions, they would be in a position not only to negotiate but also to carry on dialogue In that case, at international negotiations and conferences like for example the most recent conference on human rights in Vienna they would not be embarrassed by the Chinese Communists, but could point out to them (and other autocratic Asian governments) that human rights are not some-thing exclusively Western For example, the concept of <<yen,» the «humanum,»

is quite a central concept of Chinese tradition which at the present time could very well be a basis for the human rights that are vigorously being called for all over Asia and Africa and in the long run cannot be suppressed by force 16

Confucius was in fact already convinced that a government could most easily dispense with the military, if need be also with food, but least of all with the trust the people have in it.l7 And there is no disputing the fact that from China, Tibet, Burma and Thailand through Indonesian Westirian and the Philippians

to Kenya and the Congo, human rights express something deeply longed for

by subjects from their rulers The «dissidents» are by no means a tiny minority! Those millions whom the brave Nobel prizewinner Aung San Sun Kyi could mobilize in Burma through free elections could also be activated in China by

a man like Wei Jingsheng if there were freedom ofexpression.l8

However, clearly human rights for non-Western peoples will have a better foundation in their own ethnic religious traditions than simply in Western na-tural-law thinking And if people in the West had a better knowledge of other religious and cultural traditions, they would understand why many Asians who are open to the West and affirm modernization are still sceptical about the Western system of values Thus for example many Asians are unwilling to accept, say, unlimited individualism (with no concern for community) and absolute freedom (with all the phenomena of Western decadence connected with it); rather, as always, they attach importance to strong families, intensive educa-tion, strict work, frugality, unpretentiousness and national teamwork.l9

But here the great and highly practical question arises: in the great dispute between power and morality in world history is not the ethical standpoint lost from the start, as the Machiavellians among the politicians and press commen-tators would constantly have us believe? Is the one who calls for the maintaining

of certain humane «values» also in foreign policy a naive «preacher» and the one who constructs policy purely on «interests» a cool «strategist?» Are politics and morality as a rule compatible only as long as no important interests are affected? At all events, do not trade interests in particular prove stronger than politically moral postulate? It is remarkable that people still offer such allegedly realistic postulates when even the East European Communist dictatorships which operated so cynically with «Realpolitik» finally had to capitulate to the moral postulates of their own population!

No, politics and morality are not a priori mutually exclusive, and what was right for example against the South African apartheid state cannot a priori be

February, 145-15l

17 Confucius, Analects XII, 7

\8 Mnouchkine, A./Berger, H.G (1986): Der Prozess gegen den Schriftsteller Wei Jinsheng,

ed by A.I.D.A (International Association for the Defence of persecuted Artists); Minzhu,

H (ed.) (1990): Cries/or Democracy Writings and Speeches from i989 Chinese Democracy Movement ReinbeklPrinceton

19 Thus the Diplomat and Director of the Institute of Policy Studies in Singapore, T Koh: The 10 Values that Undergird East Asian Strength and Success, international Herald Tribune, 12 December 1993

wrong against the Communist dictatorship in China There is certainly a middle way between «preaching» and «Realpolitik,» the way of a political ethic of responsibility That means that a policy of human rights governed by an ethic

of responsibility (say of the USA towards China) would have to calculate coolly the real conditions under which it can be at all successful Specifically:

- A government advised by experts must right from the beginning consider realistically what instruments it has at its disposal for imposing demands for human rights; unfortunately, to have to withdraw idealistic demands under pres-sure encourages the political cynicism at home and abroad which there is a concern to overcome

- The government must speak with one voice (the Treasury and the Trade Ministry may not speak a different language from the Foreign Ministry)

- The influential business community should not curry favour in trade tiations with those who scorn human rights but similarly (in its own discreet way) insist on the need to observe moral criteria

nego In all unavoidable trade agreements the government should continually emphanego size in public and in private that moral perspectives are and remain of prime importance to it and that without them real friendship between nations cannot

empha-be achieved

- One government should draw the attention of the other to its own laws (which are often not observed: torture violates even Chinese law) and bring human rights

to bear as universal (and not just Western) values and norms

But does the West also practise the values which it often preaches to the

«rest of the world?» All this brings us to a last question which has not had its due in the discussion of Huntington so far, the question of an ethic, given the lack of orientation which is nowadays rampant everywhere

6 Lack of Orientation - a World Problem

What should human beings hold on to - in all circumstances and everywhere? The vacuum in orientation is a world problem

- Everywhere in the former Soviet block after the collapse of Communism and

under the surface even in Communist China, still as oppressive as before, «to

cope with this moral and spiritual vacuum is a problem not only for China but for all civilizations» (Liu Binyan).2o

- In the United States, where the population has increased by 41 % since 1960 but violent crimes have increased by 560 %, single mothers by 419 %, divorces

20 Binyan, L (1993): Foreign Affairs, 72, No.4, 21

by 300 %, children growing up in one-parent families by 300 %21 and shootings are the second most frequent cause of death after accidents (in 1990 4,200 teen-agers were shot)

- In Europe, where after the murder of a two-year-old child by two ten-yearolds

in Liverpool even Der Spiegel complained in a cover story about the «orientation

jungle,» and a lack of tabus unprecedented in cultural history: «The youngest generation must cope with a confusion of values the extent of which is almost impossible to estimate For them clear standards of right and wrong, good and evil, of the kind that were still being communicated by parents and schools, churches and sometimes even politicians in the 1950s and 1960s, are hardly recognizable any more.»22

What Friedrich Nietzsche, the most clear-sighted critic of modernity (though

he did not overcome it), saw already arising in the nineteenth century, namely, man «beyond good and evil,» obligated only to his «will to power,»23 the «death

of God» and overturning the «whole of European morality,» has become a fatal reality in the twentieth century: not only in figures of terror like Stalin and Hitler, not only in the Holocaust, the Gulag Archipelago and in two World Wars ending with atomic bombs, but also in everyday life, in the ever more frequent and unprecedented scandals involving leading politicians, businessmen and trade unionists in our industrial nations, or in the egocentricity, consumerism, violence and xenophobia of so many people, young people in particular

If in a new world constellation which is coming into being, humankind on our planet is going to have any further guarantee of survival, there is urgent need for a universal basic consensus on humane convictions A question which

is thousands of years old is also unavoidable in our time Why should one do good and not evil? Why do human beings not stand «beyond good and evil?»

Why are they not just obligated to their will to power, to success, riches, consumer goods, sex?24 Fundamental questions are often the most difficult of all, and all over the world much about morals, laws and customs that had been taken for granted down the centuries because it was backed by religious authority

is no longer automatically accepted A worldwide dialogue, a global dialogue, has already been set in motion which should to lead to a consensus over shared values, standards and basic attitudes, to a world ethic

For the fundamental question is: why should human beings - understood

as individuals, groups, nations, religions - behave, not in a bestial way, merely

21 Thus the reservations expressed by the Deputy Foreign Minister of Singapore, K bani, in his response to Huntington in Foreign Affairs, 72, 1993, No.4, 14

Mahbu-22 Der Spiegel, 1993, No.9

23 Kling, H (1984): Does God Exist? An Answer for TodaY, LondonlNew York, Chapter

D I: «The Rose of Nihilism: Friedrich Nietzsche.»

Bennett, W.J (1994): The Book of Virtues A Treasury of Great Moral Stories New York

ruled by their physical urges, but in a human, truly human, humane way? And

why should they do this unconditionally, in other words in all circumstances?

And why should everyone do this, and no class, clique or group, no state or

party, be excepted? The question of an obligation which is both unconditional (categorical) and universal (global) is the basic question for any ethic in a society which is shaped by tendencies towards increasing scientific and economic global-ization (one need think only of the international fmancial market or satellite television)

It should be evident that there is a fundamental problem here particularly for modern democracy, which has now also been adopted by Eastern Europe,

about which we should not moralize in a self-righteous way but on which we should reflect self-critically Given the way in which the free democratic con-stitutional state, which recognizes freedom of conscience and religion, under-stands itself, its world-view must be neutral, and tolerate different religions and confessions, philosophies and ideologies Yet given all that, this state is not supposed to decree meaning to life, no life-style Is this not quite manifestly the basis of the dilemma of any modem democratic state, whether in Europe, America, India or Japan? Dr Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury rightly said

a few days ago: «Whilst this country is still deeply marked by its Christian heritage and whilst a large majority retain a belief in God, we can find today

no clearly defined or sharply focused system of values which binds our whole society together Secularisation, with its utilitarian bias, does not provide a robust value system - as we are discovering to our cost.»25

People normally feel an unquenchable desire to hold on to something, to rely on something In our technological world which has become so complex, and in the confusion of their private lives, they would like to have somewhere

to stand, a line to follow; they would like to have criteria, a goal In short, people feel an unquenchable desire to have something like a basic ethical orientation

But all experiences show that human beings cannot be improved by more and more laws and precepts, nor of course can they be improved simply by psy-chology and sociology In things both small and great we are confronted with the same situation: technical knowhow is not yet knowledge about meanings; rules are not yet orientations; and laws are not yet morals Even the law needs

a moral foundation! And security in our cities and villages cannot be bought

simply with money (and more police and prisons) The ethical acceptance of laws (which provide the state with sanctions and can be imposed by force) is the presupposition of any political culture What is the use to individual states

or organizations, whether these be the EC, the USA or the United Nations, of

2S Speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Presentation of the Interfaith Medallion

to Dr L.M Singhvi, 18 October 1994

constantly new laws, if a majority of people or powerful groups or individuals have no intention of observing them and constantly find enough ways and means

of irresponsibly imposing their own or collective interests? Quid leges sine moribus? runs a Roman saying: what are laws without morals?

7 Towards a Binding Global Ethic

Certainly all states in the world have an economic and legal order, but in no state in the world will this order function without an ethical consensus, without that ethical concern among its citizens by which the state with a democratic constitution lives Already in the French Revolution there were those who wanted

to have human duties formulated from the start alongside human rights The international community has already created transnational, transcultural and trans-religious legal structures (without which international treaties would in fact be sheer self-deception) But a new world order is to exist, it needs a minimum

of common values, standards and basic attitudes, an ethic which, for all its

time-conditioned nature, is binding in all senses of the word on the whole of humanity, in short a global ethic

It was the Parliament of the World's Religions, meeting in Chicago, which

on 4 September 1993 passed a «Declaration Toward a Global EthiC»26 which

for the first time in the history of religions formulated a minimal basic consensus relating to binding values, irrevocable standards and fundamental moral attitudes This is a basic ethical consensus which:

- can be affirmed by all religions despite their «dogmatic» differences and

- can also be supported by non-believers

This declaration takes up the declaration of Human Rights ofthe United Nations and will deepen the level of rights from the perspective of an ethic I quote from this declaration:

«We are convinced of the fundamental unity ofthe human family on Earth

We recall the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations What it formally proclaimed on the level of rights we wish to confirm and deepen here from the perspective of an ethic: the full realization

of the intrinsic dignity of the human person, the inalienable freedom and equality in principle of all humans, and the necessary solidarity and inter-dependence of all humans with each other

On the basis of personal experiences and the burdensome history of our planet we have learned

26 Kung, H.!Kuschel, K.-J (eds.) (1993): A Global Ethic The Declaration of the Parliament

of the World's Religions LondonlNew Yark

- that a better global order cannot be created or enforced by laws, tions, and conventions alone;

prescrip that the realization of peace, justice, and the protection of earth depends

on the insight and readiness of men and women to act justly;

- that action in favour of rights and freedoms presumes a consciousness

of responsibility and duty, and that therefore both the minds and hearts

of women and men must be addressed;

that rights without morality cannot long endure, and that there will be

no better global order without a global ethic

By a global ethic we do not mean a global ideology or a single unified

reli-gion beyond all existing relireli-gions, and certainly not the domination of one religion over all others By a global ethic we mean afundamental consensus

on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes Without

such a fundamental consensus on an ethic, sooner or later every community will be threatened by chaos or dictatorship, and individuals will despair.»27 That does not mean that such a global ethic would make the specific ethics of the different religions superfluous The global ethic is no substitute for the Sermon on the Mount or the Torah, the Qur'an, the Bhagavadgita, the Discourses ofthe Buddha or the Sayings of Confucius On the contrary, it is precisely these age-old «sacred texts,» important to billions of people, that can give a global ethic a solid foundation and make it concrete in a convincing way

The two fundamental demands, which in the Chicago Declaration are oped: «Every human being must be treated humanely.» And: «What you do not wish done to yourself, so not do to others!» Or in positive terms: «What you wish done to yourself, do to others!» On this basis four irrevocable direc-tives follow:

devel-1 Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life: «You shall not kill!» Or in positive terms: «Have respect for life!»

2 Commitment to a culture of solidarity and ajust economic order: «You shall not steal!» Or in positive terms: «Deal honestly and fairly!»

3 Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness: «You shall not lie!» Or in positive terms: «Speak and act truthfully!»

4 Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women: «You shall not commit sexual immorality!» Or in positive terms:

«Respect and love one another!»

Let me quote only what the Global Ethic Declaration says about a culture of non-violence and respect for life:

Kiing/Kuscbe1 (1993), 20f

«Numberless men and women of all regions and religions strive to live their lives in solidarity with one another and to work for authentic fulfilment

of their vocations Nevertheless, all over the world we find endless hunger, deficiency, and need Not only individuals, but especially unjust institutions and structures are responsible for these tragedies Millions of people are without work; millions are exploited by poor wages, forced to the edges

of society, with their possibilities for the future destroyed In many lands the gap between the poor and the rich, between the powerful and the power-less is immense We live in a world in which totalitarian state socialism

as well as unbridled capitalism have hollowed out and destroyed many ethical and spiritual values A materialistic mentality breeds greed for un-limited profit and a grasping for endless plunder These demands claim more and more of the community'S resources without obliging the individual to contribute more The cancerous social evil of corruption thrives in the developing countries and in the developed countries alike

(a) In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind

we find the directive: You shall not steal! Or in positive terms: Deal

honest-ly andfairhonest-ly! Let us reflect anew on the consequences of this ancient

direc-tive: No one has the right to rob or dispossess in any way whatsoever any other person or the commonweal Further, no one has the right to use her

or his possessions without concern for the needs of society and Earth (b) Where extreme poverty reigns, helplessness and despair spread, and theft occurs again and again for the sake of survival Where power and wealth are accumulated ruthlessly, feelings of envy, resentment, and deadly hatred and rebellion inevitably well up in the disadvantaged and marginal-ized This leads to a vicious circle of violence and counter-violence Let

no one be deceived: There is no global peace without global justice! (c) Young people must learn at home and in school that property, limited though it may be, carries with it an obligation, and that its uses should at the same time serve the common good Only thus can ajust econ- omic order be built up

(d) If the plight of the poorest billions of humans on this Planet, cularly women and children, is to be improved, the world economy must

Parti-be structured more justly Individual good deeds, and assistance projects, indispensable though they be, are insufficient The participation of all states and the authority of international organizations are needed to build just economic institutions

A solution which can be supported by all sides must be sought for the debt crisis and the poverty of the dissolving Second World, and even more the Third World Of course conflicts of interest are unavoidable In the deve-loped countries, a distinction must be made between necessary and limitless consumption, between socially beneficial and non-beneficial uses of

property, between justified and unjustified uses of natural resources, and between a profit-only and a socially beneficial and ecologically oriented market economy Even the developing nations must search their national consciences

Wherever those ruling threaten to repress those ruled, wherever tions threaten persons, and wherever might oppresses right, we have an obligation to resist whenever possible non-violently

institu-(e) To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious and ethical traditions means the following: We must utilize economic and political power for service to humanity instead of misusing it in ruthless

battles for domination We must develop a spirit of compassion with those who suffer, with special care for the children, the aged, the poor, the disabled, the refugees, and the lonely

We must cultivate mutual respect and consideration, so as to reach a

reasonable balance of interests, instead of thinking only of unlimited power and unavoidable competitive struggles

We must value a sense of moderation and modesty instead of an

un-quenchable greed for money, prestige, and consumption! In greed humans lose their 'souls,' their freedom, their composure, their inner peace, and thus that which makes them human.»28

I am convinced that the new world order will only be a better order if as a result there we have a pluralistic world society characterized by partnership, which encourages peace and is nature-friendly and ecumenical This is the conclusion

of the Declaration of the Parliament of the World's Religions:

«In conclusion, we appeal to all the inhabitants of this planet Earth cannot

be changed for the better unless the consciousness of individuals is changed

We pledge to work for such transformation in individual and collective ciousness, for the awakening of our spiritual powers through reflection, meditation, prayer, or positive thinking, for a conversion of the heart Toge-

cons-ther we can move mountains! Without a willingness to take risks and a readiness to sacrifice there can be no fundamental change in our situation! Therefore we commit ourselves to a common global ethic, to better mutual understanding, as well as to socially-beneficial peace-fostering, and Earth-friendly ways of life We invite all men and women, whether religiOUS or not, to do the same »29

28 KiingIKuschel (1993), 26-29

KiingIKuschel (1993), 36

THE RESPONSIBILITY ENTERPRISES HAVE REGARDING

Hans Ruh

To start with I would like to sketch the problem in four points:

1 The world is facing huge problems

2 Enterprises have contributed to these problems

3 What part do enterprises play in solving these problems (ethical sibility)?

respon-4 Who else would and could solve the problems?

There is no doubt at all that economic enterprises have the first and foremost

part in creating and at the same time solVing today's problems Apart from

science and technology they are the most potent creators of problems which have to be solved

If we ask what kind of problems have been created and should be solved

in this world I can see three common denominators:

1 Particularly in connection with today's ecological problem it becomes evident that human beings are very different from other beings: humans interfere fundamentally with the natural course oflife on our planet with the consequence that there are fast and fundamentally dramatic global changes which endanger the very basis of life for humans Unemployment as a consequence of rationali-zing and organisational strategies is one of the side effects

2 Humans have still not solved the main sociopolitical problem: the question

of just and yet adequate distribution and sharing Arising from this we can see worldwide and national mass impoverishment, new poverty in industrial coun-tries, violence growing out of poverty, slumming Social threats apart from the ecological ones threaten the quality of life and survival for all humanity

3 Human beings seem to lose their sense of purpose Particularly in highly industrialized countries a sense of purpose, perspective and fulfilment of life are decreasing Instead primitive behaviour, hollow hedonism, potentials for more violence, pornography and flight into addictions are on the increase

29

P Ulrich and C Sarasin (eds.), Facing Public Interest, 29-32,

The global problems that we are facing today can all be listed under the above three points: unemployment, population explosion, destruction of the environment, violence, drug addiction, slumming, wars

Let's emphasize again: economic enterprises are first in creating and also

in solving these problems Of course we know the argument: economic ses want to meet the requirements of people and the market regarding goods and services; enterprises do not see the above mentioned problems at all And

enterpri-of course enterprises do try to fulfil the needs enterpri-of the market But it should become much more clear that the fulfilment of these needs creates all the big problems in the world and does not solve them This is the real point of ethical responsibility

Let's illustrate this fact with the term productivity The development of this

term shows the problem of the development of economical theory in a micro area The root of the word «production» can be found in Latin: «producere» which means bring forth, cause, effect, raise

The actual meaning of «productive» was defined differently in different times During mercantilism activities were considered productive which contrib-uted to the increase in the wealth of a nation For physiocrats agriculture and mining alone meant «being productive.» Generally, productivity was understood

as the capability to produce goods for the increase of the wealth of a people The addition by Adam Smith was decisive: «Productive» only applies if the exchange value of a good is more than its original cost In other words: only that is productive which can be sold on the market This dimension of the market was from then on part of today's definition of market, also in today's meaning

of technical productivity Productivity today means human work production Technology, rationalizing and capital are becoming increasingly important factors

of this performance Productivity today means goods and services that can be sold on the market

Thus this term expresses the advantage and the misery of modem economics: advantage regarding the indispensable requirement of efficiency and profit-making Misery because such a definition of productivity is blind towards the big questions of our time: unemployment, destruction of the environment, social disparity, loss of sense, meaning and purpose

In view of these mayor problems I want to uncover several shortcomings

of today's meaning of productivity: the majority of inhabitants of this world,

though willing to work, are not allowed into the productivity process, they are supposedly unemployed High productivity is often linked with high destruction

of the environment To mention just a few: the use of polluting vehicles, poisonous colours, pesticides, synthetic and plastic materials etc Despite high productivity the rich get richer, the poor poorer This is not only the case comparing industrial and developing countries, but lately this is also happening amongst industrialized countries «Productive» goods such as weapons, certain

toys, certain electronic and computer games make a big contribution to damaging health and to the loss of sense and purpose

The term of productivity comes into a bad light from another point of view

as well There are people who are supposedly nonproductive but through this are most useful to society, such as a farmer who works without dung; an entrepreneur who does not produce senseless or dangerous goods; a transport firm which works without damage to the environment Quite often it is these who work unproductively or do without productivity who are the most useful

to society in the long term because they follow the law of sustainability The term of productivity leads us into an apory - facing the problems of today - more than ever before

What conclusions do we draw from these lines of thought? We could demand that productivity should again mean: to the benefit of society My

thought is: if every epoch has created its own definition of productivity, we should create our own definition as well which woulde be adequate to the real welfare of our time

The term of productivity is a product ofthe history of economics We have just reconstructed it and listed its stages: it means a useful process to increase the welfare of the people, and the exchange value of such a good must be more than its original cost Important production factors apart from work are always technology, rationalizing and input of capital This definition of productivity has lead into an apory and has to be corrected in the sense that the new defini-tion of productivity has to consider the above points: the fundamental influence humans have on this world, the problem of distribution and sharing and that humans are losing their sense of purpose

During the process of covering the needs in goods and services these three realms have come to the forefront even though this was not the intention What

we need today is a productivity that is ecological, a social benefit and that gives people a sense of purpose However, the situation today does not look as if we were moving in this direction On the contrary, we have enforced the classical elements of productivity such as rationalizing and more technology, and are moving towards apory in a liberalized world market on a global level Problems will thus get worse, not better, we are further from a solution par-ticularly regarding the above mentioned three realms: humans interfering deeply with nature, distribution, loss of sense and purpose Economic enterprises are competing harder than ever with each other which makes new solutions difficult How do economic enterprises deal with these realities? How, if there are hardly any regulating instruments internationally? How, if enterprises pass on the pressure to rationalize even more within national markets, e.g with redundan-cies? How, if there is no scope for adequate consideration of the above central questions within an enterprise? How, ifmanageresses and managers during times

of deregulation are not prepared to cooperate with setting new and strict law

standards locally and globally? The central question for enterprises is: how do

we secure an ecological, social and purpose-giving productivity?

Before I give my answers from my point of view I would like to underline the necessary contribution from the part of enterprises:

1 Because the government cannot do everything, enterprises have to take sibility autonomously

respon-2 Because enterprises within the market have great influence on ecology, in social matters and purpose-giving, the logical deduction is great responsibility and need for action

3 Because enterprises have the biggest potential, they have to use it responsibly

To answer the question: how to secure a productivity that is ecological,

a contribution in social welfare and purpose-giving? I would like to mention

6 prerequisites (These are requests for enterprises!):

1 Change to sustainable technology,

2 Change to sustainable energy, e.g decentral solar energy,

3 Careful use of areas, soil, ground and earth,

4 Decrease of social disparity,

5 Change to healthy, purpose-giving and violence-reducing products,

6 Regionalize economies

Society or the government would have to stipulate the following guidelines

or laws:

1 Ecological tax system,

2 Basic economic security for everybody,

3 Social service rendered by everybody

This combination of entrepreneurial and legal measures would be a step towards solving the great problems of today