CPR talk with Thomas Fischer (DGB), 20.06.2024
How do trade unions view corporate political responsibility (CPR)?
We expressly welcome the CPR approach. For a long time, we have complained that despite the increasing fragmentation of the political landscape, hardly any voices from employers were heard. Recently, however, there have been some interesting entrepreneurial initiatives, three of which I would like to highlight. The first is the “Wir stehen für Werte” ("We stand for values") alliance which was founded in view of the 2024 European elections by over thirty major German companies to promote tolerance, openness, and diversity. The alliance has encouraged citizens to go vote, thereby specifically addressing the workforces of its member companies. The DGB has supported this initiative together with the BDI. Secondly, I would like to mention the alliance "Vereint für Demokratie” (“United for Democracy") of which IG Metall is a member. The alliance pools financial resources from companies and foundations in a "Democracy Fund" to support local civil society work. Thirdly, I would like to mention a social partner initiative with which ver.di and the employers' association of the private banking sector have entered uncharted territory. They agreed that the employees in this sector can attend free seminars offered through the Business Council for Democracy (BC4D) during working hours, such as courses on dealing with fake news and hate speech on social media.
How can political responsibility be anchored in the company?
In my view, it is important to work on a "system of communicating tubes". This means that the topic is not exclusively negotiated in the executive and supervisory boards, but in close cooperation with works and staff councils. Generally speaking, the CPR-related responsibility discourse has lacked attention towards employee participation. If more democracy is implemented within the company and its working environment, more employees will support democratic engagement in society. To be credible, the socio-political stance of companies must go hand in hand with their willingness to ensure more democratic processes in their own operations. I find it problematic, for example, when companies publicly declare their support for democracy and human rights but do everything they can behind the scenes to prevent stricter reporting policies regarding their supply chains. Such contradictions are certainly noticed by the workforce.
Against the backdrop the European election results, how can CPR be used to counter the increasing influence that the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has on the workforce?
The results of the European elections were worrisome. The main reasons behind the changed voting behavior of employees are of a social nature - even if the social aspect is, of course, highly political. Many are concerned with issues such as the future of their industry, location, and profession. Certain jobs, for example in the automotive industry, have traditionally been associated with a high level of professional pride. However, in recent year this has been shaken by transformations.
If employers do not provide convincing answers to the questions raised by employees regarding secure prospects in times of profound upheaval, their CPR commitment will have little impact on the attitudes of employees. This is particularly true when it comes to the issue of location: anyone who makes use of location benefits, such as state subsidies for the development of new green technologies, production processes, and business models, must in return also show loyalty to Germany as a business location. In general, public support for companies with an eye on a successful climate transition should be tied to fulfilling certain social requirements - i.e. location guarantees and criteria for good work.
But we as trade unions certainly also have reason to be self-critical. In many areas, we failed to develop answers to the current concerns of the workforce at an early stage. Here is just one example: In the 1970s, the trade unions addressed climate protection issues early on, but then turned to other topics during the labor market crises and the globalization spurts of the following decades. We have since reoriented ourselves again. Now, achieving the Paris climate targets is non-negotiable for us and we want to make our contribution towards this goal. Incidentally, this also applies to most employees. Climate protection is a top priority for them. On the trade union side, however, we may have initially underestimated their future concerns resulting from the required "green" remodeling of our economy. This feeling of increasing uncertainty was then, of course, significantly exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, and the energy and inflation crises. All of these are developments that no one could have foreseen. Either way, we are increasingly called upon to explain why the climate transition must not be called into question - and we must also ensure that employees are democratically involved in shaping the transformation. Only if employees have an equal say in deciding how the climate targets can be achieved will it be possible to ensure that the ecological transition is also socially just.
And I would like to add one final comment: if the far-right AfD and others deny climate change and declare the transformation of our economy towards climate neutrality as superfluous, then they are acting as gravediggers for prosperity, growth, secure and good jobs, and a better life for current and future generations in our country. A simple "business as usual", clinging to the fossil fuel economy, as propagated by these reactionaries, would catapult our country backwards in the international competition. That is why it is sheer mockery of the AfD to claim to be a "workers' party". The exact opposite is the case: their plans would predominantly come at the expense of workers.
Does the old logic still hold, according to which politicians promise their voters that they can solve all problems for them?
I do not think that most political decision-makers in the democratic spectrum lack awareness of this. However, we still have an implementation problem. Politicians promise a lot but implement comparatively little. The realization that politics and the modern state should have a stronger "mission orientation" to solve the major tasks of the present day is hardly being put into practice. Countries such as China and the USA are currently better positioned when it comes to mission orientation. Regarding China, however, this does not mean that an undemocratic model will lead to growth and increasing prosperity in the long term. Democracies need patience and perseverance: together we should set up our system in such a way that we remain competitive with autocracies. The state must set the direction here, but companies are just as much in demand when it comes to implementation.
What does successful socio-political engagement of companies look like?
Let's take the chemical company Evonik as an example, whose management is publicly committed to diversity. A survey conducted by the youth and trainee representatives of the company showed a high level of approval among the workforce - also due to the strong commitment shown by trade unions and works councils. This is a good example of a successful, complementary social partnership. Employee participation contributes towards a comprehensive implementation of sociopolitical measures, because employees also want to see flourish the cooperation between diverse actors within the company. Additionally, trade unions and works councils have expanded their knowledge. For a long time, a patriarchal understanding of representation has prevailed in works councils. Fortunately, this has changed. Now, we are increasingly succeeding in making works council operations more participation-oriented, thus ensuring a more inclusive representation of diverse groups.
Comments