Trust in the market discourse

– what is trust in business relations between democracies and non-

democracies?

• 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 non-democracies?

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 non-democracies

• 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 ethical-political 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?