Controlling big business in a post-Brexit world: Can the UK cope alone?

The Brexit vote has been called a victory against big business. But Kenneth Amaeshi says it was a missed opportunity to grasp responsible capitalism.

The UK’s vote to leave the EU has been framed in some quarters as the defeat of globalisation and a push back against the domination of big business in politics and public life, the ugly face of globalisation and the main enemy of ‘ordinary people’. But the idea that Brexit is a defeat of big business is partly a distortion. Big business is indispensable.
 
It’s also a lost opportunity to focus attention on how to curtail the excesses of big business on a global scale. Something articulated very eloquently in recent conversations around the pursuit of responsible capitalism.
 
The world is confronted by global challenges such as climate change, poverty, inequality, terrorism and water scarcity. And there is now a growing recognition that the private sector has a role to play in meeting some of these challenges.
 
The consistent call on businesses to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – through initiatives like the Business and Sustainable Development Commission and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development – is just one example of the important influence they can have on society.
 
But will the pervasiveness and excesses of big business become more prominent in post-Brexit UK?
 
The question arises because of the free market orientation of the UK economy and its strong tendency, if unchecked, towards short-termism and impatient capital, which may, in turn, have significant adverse effects on the economy in the long run.
 
This stands in contrast to the mainland European variety of capitalism, which is more long term oriented and focuses on the interests of broader stakeholder groups than just shareholders.
 
The EU tends to strike a balance between the two versions of capitalism in Europe. On one handpromoting the free market, and on the other safeguarding workers’ rights, often taken for granted in liberal market economies.
 
So a concerted effort will need to be made in post-Brexit UK, to ensure big business is managed in a way which leverages the advantages they bring while ensuring that they are well governed and managed.
 
Pros and cons of big business
 
While anti-business rhetoric has gained ground and become popular it seems to be built on the assumption that there are more credible alternatives. But big businesses are ubiquitous in our lives.
 
From the basic human needs of food, shelter, and clothing to the exotic heights of human aspirations of walking the moon and touring the space. We now live and breathe the products and services of big business. So it’s overly simplistic to envisage a world without them.
 
Big corporations can do good. They create jobs, most of them pay taxes and contribute to economic development and social prosperity.
 
Meanwhile, their size and prevalence is a strength. Their ability to efficiently coordinate across borders, for instance, can reduce transaction costs which can be passed on to consumers.
 
Nonetheless, their global reach can be their downfall. It’s possible for them to escape the clutches of national governance apparatus and play one country against the other to take advantage of what has become a conspicuous global governance void.
 
And it’s within this opportunism which lies the potential for environmental abuse, bribery and corruption, regulatory capture, tax avoidance and evasion. All of which can undermine public trust.
 
Accepting the good, managing the bad
 
Those who complain about big business obviously want to enjoy the positive impact they have but not their negative effects. This is understandable.
 
The question is: how can the power, capability, and reach of big business be used to contribute to the continued progress of humanity in the world? The possible misuse of power typical of big business leaves a nagging question of how to control and govern them in such a way that they contribute positively to society.
 
The governance of big businesses is a complex endeavour requiring enormous capacity. The EU’s ability to restrain Microsoft’s antitrust practices in the trading bloc is a good example of what it takes to control big business.
 
There was a lost opportunity in the unfocused Brexit debate to nudge big business toward the realisation of a responsible capitalist system. As the discourse rages on, thoughts must now surely turn to whether this task is better achieved with, or without the EU.
 
-------------------------------
 
Professor Kenneth Amaeshi is Professor in strategy and international business at University of Edinburgh Business School, and Director of the Sustainable Business Initiative.

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

Latest blogs

  • 22nd January 2019

    The UK is increasingly polarised by Brexit identities and they seem to have become stronger than party identities, a new academic report finds. Only one in 16 people did not have a Brexit identity, while more than one in five said they had no party identity. Sir John Curtice’s latest analysis of public opinion on a further referendum finds there has been no decisive shift in favour of another referendum. The report, Brexit and public opinion 2019, by The UK in a Changing Europe, provides an authoritative, comprehensive and up-to-date guide to public opinion on each of the key issues around Brexit. CCC Fellow, Dr Coree Brown Swan contributed a chapter on "the SNP, Brexit and the politics of independence"

  • 22nd January 2019

    In the papers accompanying the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill published at the end of 2018, the UK Government says that it is “exploring opportunities to co-design the final proposals with the devolved administrations.” There are clear benefits in having strong co-operation and collaboration across the UK in the oversight of our environmental law and performance. Yet the challenge of finding a way forward in terms of working together is substantial since each part of the UK is in a different position at present. Given where things stand today, it may be better to accept that a good resolution is not possible immediately and to revisit the issue at a later stage - so long as there is a strong commitment to return and not allow interim arrangements to become fixed. Colin Reid, Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Dundee examines the issues.

  • 17th January 2019

    Richard Parry assesses a memorable day in UK parliamentary history as the Commons splits 432-202 on 15 January 2019 against the Government's recommended Brexit route. It was the most dramatic night at Westminster since the Labour government’s defeat on a confidence motion in 1979.

  • 17th January 2019

    What is the Irish government’s Brexit wish-list? The suggestion that Irish unity, as opposed to safeguarding political and economic stability, is the foremost concern of the Irish government is to misunderstand and misrepresent the motivations of this key Brexit stakeholder, writes Mary C. Murphy (University College Cork).

  • 17th January 2019

    Brexit is in trouble but not because of the Irish backstop, argues the CCC's Michael Keating.

Read More Posts