Trust in the market discourse
– what is trust in business relations
between democracies and nondemocracies?
• Are the possibilities, freedom and rights of
democracies, and the fundament of marked
liberalism, a result of the lack of freedom,
possibilities and rights of people in nondemocracies?
Two state owned companies –
Kongsberg Gruppen and Statoil
• Ethical and moral challenges related to how trust
is understood and practiced in the market
discourse, in business relations between state
owned companies from democracies and nondemocracies
• What is the role of the government?
• What expectations do the society have to the
government in such relations?
• How does the government define risk in relation
with non-democracies?
Two national levels of challenge
• Ehical – because relations to non-democracies
challenge the ethical-political framework of
democracies (Habermas 1996)
• Moral – because the development of practices
in the market are legitimized by the ethicalpolitical framework and refers to what is seen
as legitimate practices
What defines trustworthy actions and
practices?
• The market discourse understood as an open
arena for transactions, based on liberal and
democratic values
• An arena where profit is a legal goal, and an
legitimate argument for legalizing actions and
practices done in the market discourse
• Has an ethical-political frame that mirrors the
interests of the participating nations, and their
national ethical-political frames
What defines trustworthy actions and
practices?
•
•
•
•
•
Consensus as a premise for trust?
The social contract of Rawls (2003, 1999) Justice as Fairness
Society as a system of cooperation
Where the goal is stability and the way towards it is overlapping consensus
The concept of justice – every participant in the contract is seen as a free
and equal individual, and should be treated justly
– A system that prevents the fundamental freedom of each individual
– The freedom of opinion, speech and equal possibilities
– The principle of fair oportunities – realizing the oportunities should benefit
the weakest members of the society
• Three levels of justice
– Local principles of justice
– National principles of justice
– Global principles of justice
Two cases – always in search for new
markets…
• Kongsberg Gruppen – investments in China, India, Middle East etc.
• Statoil – investments Azerbaijan, Middle East, Alberta, Canada etc.
• Both companies has defined a set of commitments that especially
stress the importance of acting in line with the Human Rights
Declaration
• KG writes in their Report on Corporate Social Responsibility (2011)
that every action in the company are done in consensus with the
Human Rights
• KG also makes a very clear point on how the company are
responsible citizens in the national and international society – they
are comitting to the governmental restrictions on CSR, and saying
that every transaction done by the KG in the international market is
verified and certified by the Department of Foreign Affairs
Kongsberg Gruppen
• The problem is that the phrase about every
choice of action or practice being in line with the
Human Rights, are reduced to only being a matter
of internal affairs – it is all about how the
company, internally, are following the Human
Rights; especially the ILO-conventions as the
freedom of organisation, against slavery, just
payment, work-environmental issues etc. Also the
UN Convention on Childrens Rights are given big
attention – when it comes to internal affairs
Some critical points
• 1. A critical consequence of producing, selling and
using weapons made for war is killing someone –
directly or indirectly
• 2. State owned companies that produce weapons for
war is a moral challenge, because the official
Norwegian attitude is a “peace-nation” working
towards peace – Norway indirectly supports war
• 3. Weapons and war often leads to actions that
challenge or brake the human rights declaration.
• 4. It is a moral challenge that KG means their actions
never compromise or brake the Human Rights
Some critical points
• 1. Statoils actions in Alberta, Canada are legal,
but compromises the premises for trustworthy
practice defined by the norwegian
government
• 2. The case of Alberta challenges and brakes
the Human Rights and the ILO-convention
(169) on the rights of natives
• 3. The actions in Nigeria is not in consensus
with the Human Rights
•
•
•
•
What is stability?
What is justice?
What is freedom?
Are the premises of the Norwegian
government relative?