Recently, I had a conversation with a Catholic researcher in Rome about Laudato Si, the new papal encyclical on justice and the environment. At the heart of our conversation lay the seemingly insurmountable challenge of how to create a global governance and accountability system that incorporates multinational corporations and holds them accountable for their actions.
History abounds with the problems of creating global governance. Think about how the League of Nations failed, giving way to the United Nations. Look at the establishment of the Eurozone, and the convulsions brought on by the Greek financial crisis. Getting people to the table is hard; creating a framework and modus operandi everyone finds acceptable is harder; getting everyone to sign off on the final product may be hardest of all (see the new Iran nuclear deal and the US Congress).
Pope Francis' governance vision also includes a "common good" moral framework. That seems nearly impossible. Yes, "there is always a social mortgage on all private property," and "by itself the market cannot guarantee integral human development and social inclusion." Still, how do we call multinational corporations--owned by a relative few and built and incentivized for self-interest--to global accountability with a focus on the common good? As former Harvard Kennedy School Dean David Ellwood taught me in my first day of grad school, the market is designed to maximize the individual good, not the common.
Still, we shouldn't throw up our hands. The past offers hope.
You may remember from some history class that the powers of Europe ended the 30 Years War in 1648 with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia. It's been a long time since I studied international security policy, so apologies to those who know this subject better, but to sum it up, the Treaty of Westphalia ended nonstop, religiously- and territorially-motivated war between key European powers by, among other things, establishing the concept of national sovereignty as the source of legitimate geopolitical actions, and then setting parameters for that legitimacy and those actions.
The treaty introduced groundbreaking stability, finally protecting the little people from decade after decade of a real-life Game of Thrones. Its import to our current global ecological and social justice challenges, however, comes in a part I didn't learn about in graduate school. One key idea the treaty codifies is the "advantage of the other." Here's the passage, which appears at the beginning of one of the two treaty documents:
There shall be a Christian and universal peace, and a perpetual, true, and
sincere amity, between ... all and each of the allies ...And this peace and amity shall be observed and cultivated with such a sincerity and zeal, that each party shall endeavor to procure the benefit, honor and advantage of the other; that thus on all sides they may see this peace and friendship...flourish, by entertaining a good and faithful neighborhood. (Italics added for emphasis.)
Here we have a moral calling to the other's needs -- some belief that a rising tide lifts all boats -- baked right into the same document that codified the role of sovereignty itself.
Today, at least here in the United States, we embrace market values increasingly to the exclusion of other moral codes. Globally, the poor and vulnerable live a whole new survival of the fittest in which nations and corporations alike easily can pursue profit, prosperity and self-interest at the expense of those who are weaker, all while rejecting moral or ethical claims that would curb that behavior if such claims also curb profits.
I don't argue we can apply something like the Treaty of Westphalia directly to multinational corporations and move peacefully along our advantage-of-the-other way. Indeed, it would be disastrous to grant multinationals sovereign status. I also don't argue that multi-national corporations and their leaders are inherently bad-faith actors.
Nevertheless, there is something essential and virtuous to Laudato Si's call to build global governance rooted in the common good and against a "culture of consumerism." There is, indeed, a social mortgage on private property. Recognizing and acting on that moral claim is not necessarily a death knell for self-interested actors.
If history is any guide, it may actually be good for us.