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

Misogynoir: How social media abuse exposes longstanding prejudices against black women

After decades as an MP, Diane Abbott finally spoke out about the racist and sexist abuse she faces. But she's not alone. 

“Which STD will end your miserable life?” “This is why monkeys don’t belong here.” “I hope you get lynched”. These are just some of the many messages Seyi Akiwowo, a Labour councillor in Newham, told me she has been sent over the past three weeks. Akiwowo has received reams of violent and racist abuse after a video of her suggesting former empires pay reparations to countries they once colonised (and whose resources they still continue to plunder) went viral. She doesn’t expect everyone to agree with her, she said, but people seem to think they’re entitled to hurl abuse at her because she’s a black woman.

The particular intensity of misogyny directed at black women is so commonplace that it was given a name by academic Moya Bailey: misogynoir. This was highlighted recently when Diane Abbott, the country’s first and most-well known black woman MP and current shadow Home secretary, spoke out about the violent messages she’s received and continues to receive. The messages are so serious that Abbott’s staff often fear for her safety. There is an implicit point in abuse like this: women of colour, in particular black women, should know their place. If they dare to share their opinions, they’ll be attacked for it.

There is no shortage of evidence to show women of colour are sent racist and sexist messages for simply having an opinion or being in the public eye, but there is a dearth of meaningful responses. “I don’t see social media companies or government leaders doing enough to rectify the issue,” said Akiwowo, who has reported some of the abuse she’s received. Chi Onwurah, shadow minister for Business, Innovation and Skills, agreed. “The advice from social media experts is not to feed the trolls, but that vacates the public space for them," she said. But ignoring abuse is a non-solution. Although Onwurah notes the police and media giants are beginning to take this abuse seriously, not enough is being done.

Akiwowo has conversations with young women of colour who become less sure they want to go into politics after seeing the way people like Abbott have been treated. It’s an unsurprising reaction. Kate Osamor, shadow secretary of state for International Development, argued no one should have to deal with the kind of vitriol Abbott does. It’s well documented that the ease and anonymity of social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have changed the nature of communication – and for politicians, this means more abuse, at a faster pace and at all hours of the day. Social media, Onwurah said, has given abuse a “new lease of life”. There needs to be a concerted effort to stop people from using these platforms to spout their odious views.

But there is another layer to understanding misogyny and racism in public life. The rapid and anonymous, yet public, nature of social media has shone a light on what women of colour already know to be a reality. Dawn Butler MP, who has previously described racism as the House of Commons’ “dirty little secret”, told me “of course” she has experienced racism and sexism in Parliament: “What surprises me is when other people are surprised”. Perhaps that’s because there’s an unwillingness to realise or really grapple the pervasiveness of misogynoir.

“Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to get someone to understand the discriminatory nature of peoples’ actions,” Butler explained. “That itself is demoralising and exhausting.” After 30 years of racist and sexist treatment, it was only when Abbott highlighted the visceral abuse she experiences that politicians and commentators were willing to speak out in her support. Even then, there seemed to be little recognition of how deep this ran. In recent years, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been ridiculed for having a relationship with her in the 70s, as if a black woman’s sexuality is both intriguing and laughable; people regularly imply she’s incompetent, despite having been in Parliament for three decades and at the last general election increasing her majority by a staggering amount; she has even been derided by her own colleagues. Those Labour MPs who began the hashtag #PrayforDiane when she was off work because of illness spoke to a form of bullying that wouldn’t be acceptable in most workplaces.

These supposedly less obvious forms of racism and sexism are largely downplayed or seen as unrelated to discrimination. They might be understood through what influential scholar Stuart Hall called the “grammar of race”. Different from overtly racist comments, Hall says there’s a form of racism that’s “inferential”; naturalised representations of people - whether factual or fictional - have “racist premises and propositions inscribed in them as a set of unquestioned assumptions”. Alongside the racist insults hurled at black women politicians like Abbott, there’s a set of racialised tropes that rely on sexualisation or derision to undermine these women.

The streams of abuse on social media aren’t the only barrier people of colour – and women in particular – face when they think about getting into politics. “I don’t think there’s a shortage of people in the black community who put themselves forward to stand for office, you only have to look at when positions come up the list of people that go for the position,” Claudia Webbe, a councillor and member of Labour's ruling body the National Executive Committee told me. As one of the few black women to hold such a position in the history of the Labour party, she knows from her extensive career how the system works. “I think there is both a problem of unfair selection and a problem of BME [black and minority ethnic] people sustaining the course." Conscious and unconscious racial and gender bias means politics are, like other areas of work in the UK, more difficult to get into if you’re a woman of colour.

“The way white women respond to the way black women are treated is integral,” Osamor says, “They are part of the solution”. White women also face venomous and low-lying forms of sexism that are often overlooked, but at times the solidarity given to them is conditional for women of colour. In a leaked letter to The Guardian, Abbott’s staff criticised the police for not acting on death threats, while similar messages sent to Anna Soubry MP resulted in arrest. When the mainstream left talks about women, it usually means white women. This implicitly turns the experiences of women of colour into an afterthought.

The systematic discrimination against women of colour, and its erasure or addendum-like quality, stems from the colonial racial order. In the days of the British empire, white women were ranked as superior to colonised Asian and African women who were at different times seen as overly sexualised or unfeminine. Black women were at the bottom of this hierarchy. Women of colour were essentially discounted as real women. Recognising this does not equate to pitting white women and women of colour against each other. It is simply a case of recognising the fact that there is a distinct issue of racial abuse.

The online abuse women of colour, and black women specifically, is an issue that needs to be highlighted and dealt with. But there are other more insidious ways that racism and sexism manifest themselves in everyday political life, which should not be overlooked. “Thirty years ago I entered parliament to try and be the change I wanted to see,” Abbott wrote. “Despite the personal attacks and the online abuse, that struggle continues.” That struggle must be a collective one.

Maya Goodfellow researches race and racism in Britain. She is a staff writer at LabourList.