An employee writes an article in the New York Times on why they are leaving Goldman-Sachs: Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs
And here is Goldman Sachs's response: Goldman's Response
I wonder how much of what he's saying is truth? It isn't surprising that Goldman Sachs disagrees. They most certainly are not going to come out and say, "Yep, he's right, we're all really nothing but a bunch of corrupt bastards..." :D I hope Goldman-Sachs can fix itself if this is the case. It actually brings up some interesting premises though: does GS have any obligation to really be about anything aside from making money? After all, that's the job of the company: to make money for the shareholders. They can do this by peddling junk or by truly seeking to serve the customer, but anything goes as long as it's legal.
Personally, I think it's a combination of the two. Yes, the job of a business is to make money for the owners, but, businesses should seek to make money morally and ethically (as in, don't peddle junk on people under the guise of it being quality and don't seek to rip people off). Just because you can be unethical doesn't mean that you should be. Being ethical also can help in terms of public relations in the long run. It means that your firm will never enforce the stereotype that people in finance are all just greedy no-goods.
And a big corporation such as Goldman-Sachs, in particular, should strive to be as moral and ethical as possible. Firms like this are key pillars of the global financial system. They are key pillars of the overall economic system. They are the stewards of capital, and how it is allocated. They should take this role seriously.
There is often talk about businesses being "good corporate citizens." Some people say that this is nonsense, that the business should focus on making money for the owners, not on meeting some arbitrary definition of being a "good corporate citizen." For the most part, I agree with this. A business need not have to be involved in a bunch of partisan issues that are fashionable so as to be a 'good corporate citizen." What being a good corporate citizen to me means is a business that acts ethically, is moral, that doesn't try to rip people off, that doesn't abuse workers, and so forth. Such a business will not try to make anyone work in unsafe working conditions, and will not put harmful products into food or lead paint in the toys or anything like that, even if it could get away with it. Sadly, this is not how most businesses function, so we have to have regulations (and many of them use regulations to monopolize their industry).
So for a firm like Goldman-Sachs to be a good corporate citizen, it doesn't need to get involved in issues such as global warming, or environmentalism, or other popular issues, but it should seek to be moral, ethical, not try to rip off people, and take seriously its role as a key pillar of the global economic system.
It is sad that finance and financiers, one of the most important professions in the existence of humanity, have to have such a bad reputation. It is the lack of financial systems and financial institutions that are why so much of the world is poor, and why the world has been poor throughout so much of history. Finance, when populated by moral people, is to me one of the most noble professions in existence. The premier financial firms should make it a point to set the standard for ethics. But that's probably no more realistic than expecting businesspeople overall to do this!
No comments:
Post a Comment