Too Prone to Treat Human Dignity as Outside Legitimate Purview

pg. 37 : Those who inhabit the global economy are all too prone to treat matters of human dignity and security as outside their legitimate purview – matters for local political responsibility. . . . . For business leaders, this means understanding the place of their sector, industry or company in the broader social and political world – whether or not they are incentivized or compelled by regulation to do so. The same is true for local and national political actors [and] private citizens and social networks, who can no longer leave questions of global welfare and sustainability to political and economic leadership.

Readers' Guide Comment on “understanding the place of their sector, industry or company”

Of course, in one sense business leaders certainly ‘understand [their] place’ in the global world, otherwise they would not be so successful in the competitive global market. What WEF does not explain is which elements of ‘understanding’ business leaders are missing, and how this knowledge would engender a different set of choices than their current ‘understanding’ of the political, social, and ethical realities of the world.

Readers' Guide Comment on “who can no longer leave questions of global welfare … to political and economic leadership"

Non-governmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations long ago stopped trying to leave decision-making on global welfare and sustainability to nation-states and corporations, respectively. Again the ‘non-state’ terminology is used as an umbrella term, inappropriately conflating multinational corporations and civil society organizations.

Related Ideas: shifting the debate; The Oath; Step Five

The Readers' Guide welcomes comments with alternative examples or counter examples, supplemental assessments of the extracted GRI text or commentary – critical or otherwise – of the above interpretation of GRI’s perspective.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.