Let’s recap last weeks messages:
- Quote: nobody was able to predict this financial crisis
- Quote: nobody was able to estimate impacts upfront
- Reaction: suddenly governmental funds have to protect banking business and local economy
- Copy: other industries (e.g. automotive) are affected as well; they asked for financial support
- Escape: expected market extensions to manage growth via export doesn’t function as these markets stopped as well
- Surprise: China reduces car-driving within its largest cities
First we have to ask ourselves why we ask for a governmental industry or an industrial government. Although most governments have an impressive number of industrials in their “close” neighborhood, it isn’t the prime task of any government to do business via financial protection behaviors pro industry business. This type and size of subsidizing can’t be managed by any community in the western world, even less in the emerging countries.
Automotive is an important industry for several western economies. Based on the private investment levels it’s more than evident, that people in the main street reflect about the necessity to buy just now. So the decrease in automotive turnover is pure logical. Private investments cover also other items then cars only. So if a government should fund/protect automotive, we need to protect construction, machinery, etc. as well?
Some of the automotive industries expect to increase their markets into the emerging countries to compensate the reduced demand from matured markets. But why should the financial crisis not affect those countries, business and population (Most probably in other formats)? Such strategy change I read a couple of weeks ago regarding an investment bank focusing now more on retail business. This might be a successful business change for one bank (or two), but our population is limited (in the countries as well as on the world). So it’s not a global recovery strategy.
After the US election there was this statement about the “combat the financial crisis will be our prime task”. Yes understandable, but “how” is the main question. The US economy is 60% built on consumption. To increase consumption seems to be a bit strange (should people eat more, buy a 4th PC, go for an additional holiday, and exchange their sofa or curtains). We all know that consumption in this economical size (to balance current crisis) isn’t typical addressed to the financial safe people.
The actual news of the stock exchange aren’t a surprise as well. Based on the old metrics of EPS, financial stakeholder, growth, profit, competition, these institutions rank the listed companies and express their expectations about the economical future. We all know, that the artificial money, associated with the .com- phase and subprime, isn’t available anymore (and wasn’t available before, but that doesn’t care anybody).
This year’s Olympics showed the sizes of growth control. The emerging countries can’t fulfill in all demands of sustainable economies and we should protect them to become a victim of their own (unrealistic/unbalanced) expectations.
The request for more GRC is natural, but if rules are perceived as “too restrictive” the human intelligence is typically to search for “escapes”, driven by the slogan “allowed is all what isn’t forbidden”. The question, why people search for escapes, depends most probably on conflicts between targets and capabilities.
Let’s imagine, we can change the business model of global, regional, local economy and their interactions with government, society, and culture. Capabilities (in the sense of ability to execute), service demand (in the sense of “can you help me” instead of “you need this”), respect (in the sense of “diversity is a real fortune on this planet” ) could put growth, performance, profit, competition on the layers of responsibility, where education, knowledge availability, and expertise sharing, are the drivers for a sustainable capitalism.
In the Sustainability and CSR: SAP TechEd 2008 recordings (assembly) we discussed “Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability”, their relationship, the dimensions of “social” and “responsibility”. In the course of that discussion we received a question about “sustainable capitalism”, which despite time, couldn’t be discussed. Current business models are built on the constraint of finance. This dimension indicated now a strong restrictive impact to alternative scenarios. A change in constraints might open attractive greenfields for society and business.
Kind regards Paul