IN the past few years there has been a stronger ethical dimension when it comes to individuals and organisations buying goods and services. Whether this is due to a boycott over a specific firm or product or whether the decision to buy something is based on environmental issues; for more people buying goods and services comes down to more than just price.
The reasons for choosing an individual product over another can be many and varied but ultimately it comes down to personal preference. For instance, I may choose to go to a local bookshop rather than buy from an online store as I feel I get better service, help contribute to the local economy and know that this business pays his tax – as opposed to an online store which may be one of the biggest tax-avoiders in the country. That is my choice which I should be free to exercise.
The same applies to the range of public bodies that buy goods or services on behalf of our communities. This can range from councils buying in frozen meals for their community meals service to the Scottish Police Authority buying uniforms for staff. In most cases there is a balance between price and other factors which impact on decisions to buy. As long as the process is open, clear and transparent then there shouldn’t be an issue with this.
Again local councils may take the position that although one supplier may have a higher cost they provide benefits such as local employment and a boost to local economy whereas buying from a cheaper supplier may result in job losses and ultimately could lead to more demand on public services overall.
There are a number of campaigns to promote an ethical dimension into the buying decisions of public bodies. This includes campaigns to stop public sector pension funds investing in the arms trade or tobacco. Although the returns from such investments may look good on the initial balance sheet, what about the long-term costs of looking after people who have developed cancer via tobacco; or heightened security measures because of funding for the arms trade has made the country a target – that’s even if you take away the ethical decision of investing in arms which will be used to kill other human beings; is profit really more important than the value of human life?
That’s why the current proposals by the Tory Government to restrict the freedom of choice of public bodies when it comes to buying in goods and services is a bad move. Apart from removing local decision-making, it stops public bodies from representing the views of many people and forces them into a procurement policy that limits their actions. For a party that is supposedly promoting localism it seems a strange move to make, one that removes local freedom. However, the Tories have form on this, in 1988 under Thatcher they tried to prevent local councils from putting economic pressure on the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Amnesty International UK has already spoken out against this plan, with their economic relations programme director Peter Frankel fearing that such limitations could encourage human rights violations. He fears that without the fear of losing contracts to councils and other public bodies – which may be more in tune with public opinion (or even locally based campaigning) than the UK Government – then there is no incentive for companies to ensure that there are no human rights violations within their supply chains.
He also added: “Not only would it be a bad reflection on public bodies to contract with rogue companies, but it would also be bad for responsible businesses that are at risk of being undercut by those that have poor practices.”
Although it has now been confirmed that this policy will only apply to public bodies in England and Wales, it may will impact on any cross border bodies which also operate in Scotland.
The Scottish Government is right to refuse to implement similar legislation in Scotland. If the public feel strongly enough about an issue then they should apply pressure to all public bodies and elected members to review and, if possible, stop investing in certain products, services, companies or countries. This is part of our wider political and community engagement that we need if we want to be seen as as truly democratic country. If the public are against councils or other public bodies making ethical buying decisions, then they have the power to vote the politicians out that make those choices. Those politicians are aware of that before they make any such decisions and would be foolhardy to impose sanctions which they felt the public, in general, did not support.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here