Monbiot on university funding

Further to a recent blog post (scroll down for the relevant quote), this article from George Monbiot has popped up in the Guardian concerning the ability of corporations to fund university research.

Many of the comments on this piece, seem to miss his point, accusing Monbiot of wanting to live in a cave because he doesn't like Shell, whereas the argument seems to be more about whether corporate funding comes with strings attached. Not just Shell: the argument extends to any other industry that finances university education.

His point that universities don't accept tobacco funding is pertinent too: he cannot persuade universities to explain the difference between Shell and Philip Morris. The general public seems to be expected to accept that only big tobacco unduly influences government and so only big tobacco must be maligned – because its products are evil. The other industries produce stuff that is good for us like oil, pharmaceuticals, fertilisers and armaments, and it doesn't matter how much influence they purchase. The idea that tobacco companies can assist in funding cancer cures, for example, or even sponsor football, is seen as completely off the wall. It is absurd that tobacco must bear the cross of big, bad capital when there are so many companies out there, involved in activities that endanger life.

I think Monbiot is quite right to ask the question why some companies are supposedly beyond suspicion when it comes to funding higher education, especially when these companies yield so much financial clout. It's not that I don't believe some corporate higher education funding isn't inevitable, but it's quite wrong to make out that there is an issue of competing interests and apply it to tobacco and no other industry. In fact this kind of thing is a sop to anti-capitalist sentiment, allowing people to believe that they are censoring powerful industries that like to purchase government loyalty, while ignoring the fact that by and large most corporations can do whatever they like.

Issues that have aroused student protests at universities include: Newcastle students and Adidas; University of Zurich and Union Bank of Switzerland; Leeds and Swansea Universities and BAe; Oxford University and Lockheed Martin on Campaign Against the Arms Trade website; Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen and Eden Springs.

British American Tobacco and Corporate Social Responsibility: damned if they do ...

Big news: companies use corporate social responsibility programmes to gain influence in political services and disguise the harm they do to society as a whole. In this study that is supported by Cancer Research UK and others the history of this industry's corporate responsibility programme is described in some detail.

I don't have any quarrel with the idea that companies undertake Corporate Responsibility for the purpose of gaining influence with powerful people. It seems the obvious thing for companies to do. Depending on who you listen to, all companies probably do damage at some level, whether to the environment, sea life, wildlife, the air, whatever. Companies also provide employment (in theory anyway) and seek to persuade that their activity does the economy and people more good than harm.

It takes a particularly vivid stretch of the imagination to conclude that only British American Tobacco has any ulterior motive behind its corporate social responsibility activities. The conclusion should be that this is normal corporate behaviour. Instead we get this:

In a detailed case study that involved searching BAT documents made publicly available as a result of litigation in the US (for the period, 1998-2000), the authors illustrate how the company used its corporate social responsibility programme in its dialogue with policymakers to influence the priorities of public and elected officials in the UK, encourage them to take notice of proposals that best suited the company (for example, to make regulation voluntary), and to revise the Government's concerns about whether the industry could be trusted to work in partnership. 

As usual, tobacco interests are endowed with all the evils of the market capitalism and every other industry in the world is ignored. The only corporate interest whose influence this study seeks to curb is the tobacco industry ... that is to say, apart from the other big bogeymen, alcohol and food. From the study itself:

This last point may help to explain why companies from other industrial sectors—specifically food and alcohol—are currently enjoying greater success in influencing public health policy in the UK through the government's Public Health Responsibility Deal [126].

This is really nothing to do with companies getting undue influence. It's about Cameron's love of playing with big business guys (but let's ignore all the other rich boys' games except for alcohol, food and tobacco). And it's about the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Finally, in highlighting the political dimensions of CSR, this paper underlines the importance of parties to the FCTC acting on the Guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 [134]. Article 5.3 was specifically introduced to protect health policies from tobacco industry influence [135]. Its impact depends on governments implementing the Guidelines that comprise a number of Guiding Principles and Recommendations [135]. ... [etc]

If this study were really about corporate influence getting out of hand I would have some sympathy, but it's not: relying on industry papers made public during court action, it presents British American Tobacco manipulating government opinion with successful CSR campaigns, as though to suggest that only the tobacco industry were capable of such underhanded dealing.  No other industry is studied by way of comparison.

It does this in an attempt to justify further the aims of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control as well as to criticise the UK's Public Health Responsibility Deal. It is policy-driven research, as usual. (Conflicts of interest are noted.)