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

  • 19th February 2019

    Over the course of the UK’s preparations for withdrawing from the EU, the issue of the UK’s own internal market has emerged as an issue of concern, and one that has the potentially significant consequences for devolution. Dr Jo Hunt of Cardiff University examines the implications.

  • 12th February 2019

    CCC Fellow Professor Daniel Wincott of Cardiff University examines how Brexit processes have already reshaped territorial politics in the UK and changed its territorial constitution.

  • 7th February 2019

    The future of agriculture policy across the United Kingdom after Brexit is uncertain and risky, according to a new paper by Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change. Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over recent years have shifted the emphasis from farming to the broader concept of rural policy. As member states have gained more discretion in applying policy, the nations of the UK have also diverged, according to local conditions and preferences.

  • 4th February 2019

    In our latest report for the "Repatriation of Competences: Implications for Devolution" project, Professor Nicola McEwen and Dr Alexandra Remond examine how, in the longer term, Brexit poses significant risks for the climate and energy ambitions of the devolved nations. These include the loss of European Structural and Investment Funds targeted at climate and low carbon energy policies, from which the devolved territories have benefited disproportionately. European Investment Bank loan funding, which has financed high risk renewables projects, especially in Scotland, may also no longer be as accessible, while future access to research and innovation funding remains uncertain. The removal of the EU policy framework, which has incentivised the low carbon ambitions of the devolved nations may also result in lost opportunities.

  • 1st February 2019

    The outcome of the various Commons votes this week left certain only that the Government would either secure an amended deal and put it to a meaningful vote on Wednesday 13 February, or in the overwhelmingly likely absence of this make a further statement that day and table another amendable motion for the following day, the Groundhog Day that may lead to a ‘St Valentine’s Day Massacre’ for one side or the other. Richard Parry assesses the further two-week pause in parliamentary action on Brexit

Read More Posts