#NewEconomy: Tom Levitt says there are no "good companies" yet

Were he still with us, I suspect that my later colleague would disagree with this assertion in the Guardian. 

It's the kind of denial we've seen so often in recent years  Only by denial of those who've taken action to "be the change" can reputation be built without the risks  that come with commitment.  Just 10 years ago, his own party disregarded the call to re-think capitalism.  It's no coincidence that Paul Polman of Unilever now makes the same call.  

The neoliberal policies of New Labour, alongside organised crime have been among our greatest obstacles and as my story will illustrate have some bearing on a loss of life that transcends MP expenses excesses.

My story begins with US President Bill Clinton and ends with the death of innocents in the Donetsk region of Ukraine.

It was our 1996 position paper which argued that business could be deployed for social benefit, saying this in the concluding paragraph  

"Clearly, profits can be used very effectively in ways other than traditional investment and profit outcomes. Moreover, this is not charity, it is business--good business. One P-CED firm could be expected to spin off dozens of new firms and businesses, all of which create new jobs and all of which operate under traditional free-enterprise practices. That is, if a spin-off business were to profit a million dollars a year, the owners can bank the money for themselves and their stockholders as is the normal practice. There is nothing wrong with individuals becoming wealthy. It is only when wealth begins to concentrate in the hands of a relative few at the expense of billions of others who are denied even a small share of finite wealth that trouble starts and physical, human suffering begins. It does not have to be this way. Massive greed and consequent massive human misery and suffering do not have to be accepted as a givens, unavoidable, intractable, irresolvable. Just changing the way business is done, if only by a few companies, can change the flow of wealth, ease and eliminate poverty, and leave us all with something better to worry about. Basic human needs such as food and shelter are fundamental human rights; there are more than enough resources available to go around--if we can just figure out how to share. It cannot be "Me first, mine first"; rather, "Me, too" is more the order of the day."

He'd first deployed it in Russia, using his own funds an source an experimental development initiative in Russia and in 2004 as we incorporated this "good business" he was interviewed about the project that created around 10,000 microenterprises in the Tomsk region.

The unsecured microfinance model he proposed would become the standard for the Russian Microfinance Centre.

He'd been in Crimea doing the same thing in 2002//3 in efforts to help the repatriated Tatar community who were largely homeless. In a summary of the Crimea proposal I related the application of doing good business as a strategic move to tackle terrorism.

It was in London in 2004, where we called on a New Labour government to support this approach, saying:

“Traditional capitalism is an insufficient economic model allowing monetary outcomes as the bottom line with little regard to social needs. Bottom line must be taken one step further by at least some companies, past profit, to people. How profits are used is equally as important as creation of profits. Where profits can be brought to bear by willing individuals and companies to social benefit, so much the better. Moreover, this activity must be recognized and supported at government policy level as a badly needed, essential, and entirely legitimate enterprise activity.”

it was both not invented and not welcome here. I called on my MP Labour's Tom Cox for help when our founder was refused entry on his unexpired visitor visa. His testy response was this

"I don't know what kind of business you and your colleague are involved in, but you can't expect me to interfere with Home Office decisions"

So he ended up in Ukraine again turning the focus of our business toward children who are instutionalised because of their disabilities. The 'Death Camps for Children' reports sent ripples through Ukraine. This was far more than good business, it was business taking a stand against corruption and human rights, saying:

"Ukraine CAN afford to do more than let these children die. To date, to this moment, Ukraine has not bothered to try.

That is a fact that I will defend with my life.

The why and wherefore behind that fact is a tale of neglect and horror indefensible in any presumably civilized country. "

He'd drawn attention to those he saw as the root cause:

"Excuses won't work, particularly in light of a handful of oligarchs in Ukraine having been allowed to loot Ukraine's economy for tens of billions of dollars. I point specifically to Akhmetov, Pinchuk, Poroshenko, and Kuchma, and this is certainly not an exhaustive list. These people can single-handedly finance 100% of all that will ever be needed to save Ukraine's orphans. None of them evidently bother to think past their bank accounts, and seem to have at least tacit blessings at this point from the new regime to keep their loot while no one wants to consider Ukraine's death camps, and the widespread poverty that produced them.. "

5 years later the story would reach mainstream media when  The Sunday Times, published an investigative story on the deliberate abuse and starvation of disabled children at the same state children’s home at Torez, just outside Donetsk. The accusations were denied by the home’s director.

Albert Pavlov of Happy Child said of another location know as Kalinovka "It's not possible to keep silent" following the discovery of a child in n advanced state of manutrition who he had been unable to save.

It was again 5 years later that this was the subject of a 90 minute BBC4 documentary on 'Ukraine's Forgotten Children' which would emphasise that nobody was speaking out: The location thought not mention was unmistakably Kalinovka

 

it beggars belief that Labour politicians would later arrive in Ukraine to support some of the oligarchs above. Stephen Byers and Tony Blair woud connect with Pinchuk's Yalta European Strategy and Lord Mandelson would connect with Akmetov to promote a trade agreement to give access to European markets.  Soon after as Minister for Business Innovation and Skills he said: “Government is committed to doing everything it can to support businesses that look beyond the balance sheet”.

The ideas sketched out in these reports would be formalised with the 'Marshall Plan" for Ukraine which set out a national scale plan for applying business for social benefit. It was delivered to Ukraine's government then published in a prominent journal in 2007 to defend the IP from the usual suspects, as our founder put it: ,

"As the 60th anniversary of the Marshall Plan came around in June 2007, noise was emerging within Ukraine of a certain political boss preparing a Marshall Plan for Ukraine.  This person was a reputed mob boss -- exactly the sort of entity that the original Marshall Plan meant to oppose.  It seemed most likely that whatever he came up with would be self-serving, hijacking the label 'Marshall Plan' and turning the whole notion on its head.  I reviewed the original Marshall Plan and realized that what I had written was, in fact, the definition and spirit of the original Marshall Plan.  Thus, in June 2007, I appended the original title with "A Marshall Plan for Ukraine."  After some discussion among trusted colleagues over timing, I published an abbreviated version of the paper in two parts in August 2007 in the 'analytics' section of the Ukrainian news journal for-ua.com."

In the summary the cost of this project had been weighed against what was then being spent each week in Iraq by the US.   It was followed up with direct contact with USAID in February 2008, with a letter requesting their support, which concluded.

"Thank you for your time and attention to this. I and others will look forward to hearing from you. I hope we continue to realize ever more fully that outside the box and inside the box have only a box in the way. We outside the box know quite a bit of what’s going on, many times in exquisite detail, perhaps in ways that those inside the box can’t quite as easily access if at all. We are grossly underfunded in favor of missiles, bombs, and ordnance, which is about 100% backwards. Now, with even the US Pentagon stating that they’ve learned their lesson in Iraq and realize (so says top US general in Iraq ten days or so ago) that winning hearts and minds is the best option, I and others shall continue to think positive and look for aid budgets and funding spigots to be opened much more for people and NGOs in silos, foxholes and trenches, insisting on better than ordnance, and who understand things and how to fix them. We can do that. We can even do it cost-effectively and with far better efficiency than the ordnance route. Welcome to our brave new world. Except it’s not so new: learn to love and respect each other first, especially the weakest, most defenseless, most voiceless among us, then figure out the rest. There aren’t other more important things to do first. This message has been around for at least two thousand years. How difficult is it for us to understand?"

In the end, we were hijacked and our founder did defend his truths with his life. Maidan leaders who found him dead said this of his efforts

"The author of breakthru report “Death camps for children” Terry Hallman suddenly died of grave disease on Aug 18 2011. On his death bed he was speaking only of his mission – rescuing of these unlucky kids. His dream was to get them new homes filled with care and love. His quest would be continued as he wished"

That task would seem to fall on me. A closer look at the letter will reveal the seriousness of what we were bringing to their attention.

"At least one mass grave was located and disinterred, showing babies chopped to pieces with brains, internal organs, and apparently bone marrow having been removed. This was exposed by way of extraordinary bravery on the part of one young lady affiliated with Kharkiv Human Rights Group (KHPG). Why there is no criminal case about this, I do not know. Ask Kyiv, and observe what happens. BBC and PACE have all evidence.  "

USAID who's been called on for support had led the hijack on behalf of Ukraine's oligarchs. Assisted  by The British Council, PWC and many others 

It is perhaps ironic that a sustainablity leader like Paul Polman should now be an advocate for peace in Ukraine.alongside Richard Branson and the usual oligarchs. they seem to be calling for what we'd been working on . As if we'd never existed  

"We all have a responsibility to work towards peace‬ in Ukraine‬, so that people can thrive without putting their basic human rights at risk. Join us in this call for peace. We will do our best to ensure that your voice is heard by political leaders. We will also bring the right groups of business leaders together to work towards a better, more peaceful future.

I note that Tom Levitt's article in the Guardian is on a portal sponsored by Anglo American. Likewise an earlier article on business profiting by solving social problems was sponsored by another corporation. They didn't like what I shared with them from the 'Marshall Plan' about using profit to help these children. This is how practioners are shut out and as a consequence how children die. .

Whether it's cognitive dissonance or an attempt to airbrush out a man who gave his life to be the change, the plain truth is that Tom Levitt is mistaken in asserting that a good company doesn't yet exist.  

Frustrated by corrupt governance following the failure of the EU trade agreement, open hostility commenced at the end of 2013 

Imagine the oligarch who will ignore children starving in his own country, yet fund Tony Blair's Faith Foundation 

Like Tom Levitt, they are now experts on business for social benefit. A crock of shit if there ever was one.

Since 2004, P-CED has operated as a profit-for-purpose business which means:

No dividend distrbution

At least 50% of profit invested in social purpose

A fundamental predicate that no person is disposable

The fundamental policy guide for P-CED is the International Bill of Human Rights

P-CED’s main focus falls within sphere the economic, social and cultural rights, ICESCR

A living wage policy

Radical Tranparency in our operations 

A free-to-use business model for social benefit

Particpatory management

An overalll mission of poverty elimination through targetted local economic development 

So what has this achieved?

The Tomsk Regional Initative led to the creation of around 10,000 microenterprises and was replicated in several cities by USAID

Work in Crimea had drawn the attention of US government to the risk of civil unrest and they had brought $40 million to the table. The project was blocked by its author on the grounds of corruption until their deputy finance minister was removed from office.

When Terry Hallman wrote an Op-Ed for Kyiv Post he spoke openly about corrupt government who put their comfort ahead of children's lives

One American's controversial thoughts on Ukraine

A year later the Orange Revolution began and he was back there alongside Maidan following the UK experience.

In 2005, UK government introduced the Community Interest Company which embedded some of the principles of the P-CED model, but failed to describe how it might be funded and propagated. For many it became a "front end" trading entity for charity. Earlier, in 2000, the Social Investment Task Force had been created by the same goverment. The outcome was to deliver the 'Socail Impact Bnnd' which was enthusiasticallyy embraced by an incoming Conservative government in 2010..  

The Marshall Plan was delivered in 2006 and by 2007 Ukraine's government had made several of its recommendations their policy. In particular the rasing of adoption allowances  which led almost immediately to a 40% increase in domestic adoptions, as I reported to Mixmarket. .

Our papers and study guide to the economic crisis for the international Economics for Ecology conferences have been on view since delivery. As ever. our partication funded by business for social purpose.

Though our policy is one of radical transparency it was a little to risky to talk about our collaboration with Kharkiv National University while our founder was alive. This helped a group of nuclear scientists leverage US support for an education centre for fundamental science and had led to a production agreement for medical isotopes.   

Speaking out abourt corruption brought hostiliy and physical threats, yet as our founder said

"Dealing with such things as threats and smears is as much a part of projects as the hope and good will built within communities for standing up to it.  Hope, good will, and improved lives far outweigh the stresses and strains mounted by corrupt government officials, so strife and institutional resistance to change are taken in stride as part of the change process."

For the best part of decade we called for support from UK government. We were repeatedly sent elsewhere. Not least by the social enterprise body who told us that our work was beyond their current focus.  

More recently however Labour's Ed Milband has been rebranding all we shared with the label Pre-distribution. 

I'm reminded of Indira Gandh'si anecdote about her grandfather who told her on entering politics "There are two kinds of people in the world - those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group, you'll find less competition there."  

Here are some of those who didn't benefit