Want to know what citizenship means?

Don’t ask Bob Diamond, ask consumers…

Barclays cynical appropriation of the ‘citizenship’ agenda proves that the shift towards responsible capitalism will not come from the boardroom.  But neither should we look to shareholders or politicians to bring about meaningful change.  It is a new breed of consumer and the SME’s that serve them who are drawing up the battle lines in the struggle to find a better way of doing business.

Today Barclays is holding a ‘citizenship day’ to underline the banks commitment to being a good citizen. Bob Diamond even made citizenship one of the banks ‘execution priorities’ when he took over as chief executive, but what do they actually mean by citizenship?

Unsurprisingly the ‘what does citizenship mean to us’ section of their annual report is pretty vague. But the long and short of it is that Barclays subscribes to a very traditional conception of Corporate Social Responsibility.

"Our role is to help improve the lives of our customers. We must provide mortgages, allow businesses to invest and create jobs, protect savings, pay tax, be a good neighbour in the community while also generating positive economic returns for our investors."

Bob Diamond, Chief Executive, Barclays Bank

In other words, they believe, that as a bank, fulfilling their core business activities, hiring some staff, paying some tax, providing a few grants to community organisations and running the odd volunteer day makes them a good citizen.

There is a longstanding debate about the merits of CSR.  But the zeitgeist is shifting away from CSR towards the idea of socially responsible business. Increasingly we expect companies to not just ‘give a bit back’ but to internalise the claims of society and the environment by embedding values in governance structures, supply chains, HR and operations.   Socially responsible business breaks down the distinction between business, and social and environmental aims.

 Indeed, Barclays has attempted to tap into this value shift by emphasising how its lending activities stimulate ‘growth’. But surely making loans is just what banks do?  The same goes for conducting environmental impact assessments, treating customers fairly, or most the activities Barclays are celebrating today.  It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Barclay’s newfound enthusiasm for citizenship is nothing more than a cynical PR push.

Clearly its not boardrooms who are going to be the driving force creating a more responsible capitalism.  But who will?

Much has been made in the media of "shareholder spring".  The though is that newly reinvigorated and emboldened shareholders will act as a restraint on corporate excess and encourage large corporations to act more responsibly.

But shareholders main interest is maximising their returns.  The current spate of shareholder revolts basically boil down to the complaint that senior staff in large corporations, and in particular in financial institutions like Barclays, have been creaming off too much of the revenues in pay and bonuses and not paying enough in dividends to shareholders. 

Although shareholder activism may succeed in ensuring a fairer deal for owners by tying executive remuneration closer to return on equity, the reality is that shareholders have no incentive to fundamentally change the way big business operates. If we want to see meaningful change in the way big PLCs, and in particular big banks, behave we cannot rely on shareholders alone.

Politicians of all stripes have also been fumbling towards a notion of ‘responsible capitalism’  in the attempt to show an electorate ground down by a stagnating economy and austerity cuts that they are not merely puppets in the grand farce of the financial markets.  Ed Milliband tried to distinguish between producers and predators whilst Cameron waxed lyrical about the ‘John Lewis economy’ but both notions remains nebulous and lack credibility.

Articulating a vision for a responsible form of capitalism is an almost impossible task for our political elite who has spent the last 20 years purging themselves of any such ideological impulses. Moreover responsible capitalism cannot be defined a-priori by policy makers. It is taking shape and growing on the ground.  The role of politicians is to respond to what’s already out there and create an environment in which best practice can flourish.

It is a new breed of consumers and the SME’s that serve them who are on the frontline of the struggle to build a more responsible form of capitalism.  For consumers, companies offer one choice in a market in which they have to balance a range of competing concerns about the world they live in. 

Consumers are not just concerned the particular product or service they purchase but the quality of the air they breathe when they walk down the street, the size of their grandchild’s future tax bill, how happy the people who serve them are to name a few.  These consumers are relating their consumption choices to wider macro level concerns and so inadvertently breaking down the distinction between being good consumers and being a good citizens.

New business models and vehicles for collaborative consumption, often facilitated by the social power of the internet, are developing to serve the needs of these consumers. They range from highly commercial bulk buying schemes like Groupon, to consumer cooperatives, through to peer-to-peer platforms and movements like move your money which harness consumer power to achieve broader social aims.

Barclays lecturing us on citizenship is more than a bad joke. If they were serious about citizenship and social benefit they should start by properly consulting with the people already making it happen.

The UK has already slipped back into recession and with the looming banking crisis in the Eurozone we have more economic woes in store. We urgently need our banks to be better citizens.  And if you don’t think Bob Diamond is the right person to make that happen then maybe its time to take matters into your own hands and move your money?

Louis Brooke works for Move Your Money UK. Find them on Facebook or Twitter.

Photograph: Getty Images

Louis Brooke is a spokesperson for Move Your Money UK, a not for profit campaign group, promoting alternatives to the big banks. He is also communications manager for London Rebuilding Society, and co-founder and chairman of educational resource company now>press>play.

Getty
Show Hide image

The joy of only winning once: why England should be proud of 1966

We feel the glory of that triumphant moment, 50 years ago, all the more because of all the other occasions when we have failed to win.

There’s a phrase in football that I really hate. It used to be “Thirty years of hurt”. Each time the England team crashes out of a major tournament it gets regurgitated with extra years added. Rather predictably, when England lost to Iceland in Euro 2016, it became “Fifty years of hurt”. We’ve never won the European Championship and in 17 attempts to win the World Cup we have only won once. I’m going to tell you why that’s a record to cherish.

I was seven in 1966. Our telly was broken so I had to watch the World Cup final with a neighbour. I sat squeezed on my friend Colin’s settee as his dad cheered on England with phrases like “Sock it to them Bobby”, as old fashioned now as a football rattle. When England took the lead for the second time I remember thinking, what will it feel like, when we English are actually Champions of the World. Not long after I knew. It felt good.

Wembley Stadium, 30 July 1966, was our only ever World Cup win. But let’s imagine what it would be like if, as with our rivals, we’d won it many times? Brazil have been World Champions on five occasions, Germany four, and Italy four. Most England fans would be “over the moon” if they could boast a similarly glorious record. They’re wrong. I believe it’s wonderful that we’ve only triumphed once. We all share that one single powerful memory. Sometimes in life less is definitely more.

Something extraordinary has happened. Few of us are even old enough to remember, but somehow, we all know everything that happened that day. Even if you care little about the beautiful game, I’m going to bet that you can recall as many as five iconic moments from 50 years ago. You will have clearly in your mind the BBC commentator Kenneth Wolstenholme’s famous lines, as Geoff Hurst tore down the pitch to score his hat-trick: “Some people are on the pitch. They think it’s all over. It is now”. And it was. 4 - 2 to England against West Germany. Thirty minutes earlier the Germans had equalised in the dying moments of the second half to take the game to extra time.

More drama we all share: Geoff Hurst’s second goal. Or the goal that wasn’t, as technology has since, I think, conclusively proved. The shot that crashed off the cross bar and did or didn’t cross the line. Of course, even if you weren’t alive at the time, you will know that the linesman, one Tofiq Bakhramov, from Azerbaijan (often incorrectly referred to as “Russian”) could speak not a word of English, signalled it as a goal.

Then there’s the England Captain, the oh-so-young and handsome Bobby Moore. The very embodiment of the era. You can picture him now wiping his muddy hands on his white shorts before he shakes hands with a youthful Queen Elizabeth. Later you see him lifted aloft by his team mates holding the small golden Jules Rimet trophy.

How incredible, how simply marvellous that as a nation we share such golden memories. How sad for the Brazilians and Germans. Their more numerous triumphs are dissipated through the generations. In those countries each generation will remember each victory but not with the intensity with which we English still celebrate 1966. It’s as if sex was best the first time. The first cut is the deepest.

On Colin’s dad’s TV the pictures were black and white and so were the flags. Recently I looked at the full colour Pathe newsreel of the game. It’s the red, white and blue of the Union Jack that dominates. The red cross of Saint George didn’t really come into prominence until the Nineties. The left don’t like flags much, unless they’re “deepest red”. Certainly not the Union Flag. It smacks of imperialism perhaps. In 1966 we didn’t seem to know if we were English or British. Maybe there was, and still is, something admirable and casual about not knowing who we are or what is our proper flag. 

Twelve years later I’m in Cuba at the “World Festival of Youth” – the only occasion I’ve represented my country. It was my chance to march into a stadium under my nation’s flag. Sadly, it never happened as my fellow delegates argued for hours over what, if any, flag we British should walk behind. The delegation leaders – you will have heard of them now, but they were young and unknown then – Peter Mandelson, Trevor Phillips and Charles Clarke, had to find a way out of this impasse. In the end, each delegation walked into the stadium behind their flag, except the British. Poor Mandelson stood alone for hours holding Union Jack, sweltering in the tropical sun. No other country seemed to have a problem with their flag. I guess theirs speak of revolution; ours of colonialism.

On Saturday 30 July BBC Radio 2 will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final, live from Wembley Arena. Such a celebration is only possible because on 16 occasions we failed to win that trophy. Let’s banish this idea of “Fifty years of hurt” once and for all and embrace the joy of only winning once.

Phil Jones edits the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2. On Saturday 30 July the station celebrates the 50th anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final live from Wembley Arena, telling the story of football’s most famous match, minute by minuteTickets are available from: www.wc66.org