BAE's ethical lapses
didn't in the past pay sufficient attention to ethical standards in the way .
That's the frank admission made by the defence giant's chairman and chief executive - Dick Olver and Mike Turner respectively - to a panel chaired by the former Lord chief justice of England and Wales, .
It's an embarrassing admission. And it's qualitatively different from the company's normal statements that it adheres to the law when negotiating giant defence deals.
- who include the former boss of coca cola, - have made 23 recommendations to ensure BAE does not come up ethically short in future
They include a requirement to draft and publish a code of business conduct. Other proposed measures include the creation of registers for gifts given to clients and much greater scrutiny of the shadowy advisers and fixers who facilitate big defence deals.
In the past, pragmatism has trumped principle in the defence industry. There has been a consensus among industrialists, politicians and Whitehall officials that defence companies can't be cleaner than clean if they want to win the biggest contracts and promote employment.
Lord Woolf has said that business won in a fog of dubious practices is business that's not worth having.
Since BAE has committed to implement Woolf's measures, there'll now be a very real test of whether commercial success and ethical conduct can be bedfellows.
So the implications for BAE are serious indeed. But there are also implications for all big British multinationals.
What Woolf proposes for BAE goes much further than what most companies do to ensure that they don't stray into the moral darkside. Is there any sensible reason why reforms that are right for BAE shouldn't apply to the rest of British industry?
As for the stench that hung over BAE's £40bn Al-Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia, Woolf's report contains no material views or information. However he has reviewed its successor contract, the "Salam Project" between the UK and Saudi to supply Typhoon combat aircraft, which is worth many billions of pounds.
Lord Woolf says that "security obligations" prevented access to some relevant documentation. But on the basis of the commercial details provided to him, he feels that "the contract should not in itself create any risk of unethical conduct".
Comment number 1.
At 6th May 2008, retired01 wrote:If companies trading in certain parts of the world do not conform to local 'business practices' then they can forget winning the business. Other companies, possibly from other countries, will 'conform' and they are in with a chance of the business.
The winning countries / companies will benefit from the jobs and profits generated.
How many people does BAE employ, how much tax do they and BAE pay?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 6th May 2008, Hippy god says Peace and Love likes RT wrote:Gee, another British Company (owned by British Pensioners, employing thousands of British Staff) is being knocked in the Media.
How many people need to lose their jobs before the journalists lose theirs ?
Hmm, so far house prices are down only 0.93%
Just a little correction so far.
Pension Funds have seen some of their assets values (on which Annuities and our Pensions are based) fall by over half.
So who is going to invest their money in a Pension Scheme ? (When the media does its best to knock the very companies our Pensions are invested in)
Best to Invest your money in Bricks and mortar, collect the Rent and in twenty years decide whether or not to keep the House (and Rent) or buy an Annuity (or just Gilt Edged stock).
Not a hard choice.
Bearing in mind the amount of damage done to our Pension Funds by scare stories and spreadbetting cartels, I think there should be a criminal investigation, to find out if any deliberate collusion existed between journalists and spreadbetting cartels.
If you agree write to your MP !
It's your Pensions they are plundering
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 6th May 2008, guy cross wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 6th May 2008, fluffy_n_nice wrote:Everyone with a moral conscience knows it's wrong to sell arms to countries with a dubious Human Rights record. Many people, such as myself, would include Saudi Arabia as one of those countries so can we drop all this guff about 'local business practices' please! What we have here is a classic whitewash from this enquiry which is nothing less that i'd expect. I hope we don't regret some of these arms deals in the future!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 6th May 2008, Richard wrote:this boils down to a classic left v right bun fight. Lord Woolf has come down on the left side saying that (Peston's phrase) "business won in a fog of dubious practices is business that's not worth having", though, as the last two paragraphs of Robert's post and comment #4 point out, he probably could have gone even further.
I couldn't agree more that we don't need dirty money. Those saying that UK will suffer through jobs, taxes, pension funds etc are just greedy. I'd rather live in a poor country with high moral values and ethics than a corrupt rich one.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 6th May 2008, Rogerborg wrote:Oh, here we go again. Mistakes made, but all in the past, lessons learned, won't happen again, Scout's honour. Now, go bother someone less profitable.
Still, at least whitewashing the last few remaining British industries helps to keep the Old Boys in port and truffles. How's that MG Rover investigation going?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 6th May 2008, Jacques Cartier wrote:> Lord Woolf has said that business won in a
> fog of dubious practices is business that's
> not worth having.
Especially if it is repugnant business, like the
arms trade. We have a large shortage of
skilled workers in Britain - there is no need to
debase ourselves with that sort of work.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 6th May 2008, Kang6877 wrote:Its a bit moot isn't it? We can reconcile ourselves to producing and selling weapons but can't stomach a bit of palm greasing to get the deals done. Not only do we have to compete in a expanding global market but we then place restrictions on ourselves to make to harder to do business. For what? An increased moral authority, not worth the price especially as we squandered any moral high ground we had with our ill advised middle east outing (read: total debacle). Let’s face it morally; we are only marginally better than most tin pot dictators, leave the moralising to academics and get our hands on the filthy lucre.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 6th May 2008, paul gill wrote:I worked in a junior position in Defence Sales in the nineties and bribes were an issue for certain countries though we handled them via an agent.
I was told the nearer the contract was to a signiture, the more likely I was to be contacted by someone saying they could fix the order. Fortunately it didn't happen.
More recently, the US has obtained an immense commercial advantage by default.
The Echelon system can monitor global electronic traffic looking for key words and it is believed Thatcher used this during the Westlands affair.
Any attempts at bribery can be exposed and quite right too. The catch? The operators are explicitely banned from monitoring US citizens!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 6th May 2008, solomanbrown wrote:Dear Robert.
Slush funds have been around for years,
Remember the Sandline affair, and the ducking and diving of politicians, this spans both parties, Guns for Saddam, Yellow cake,
mercenaries, even Mark Thatcher got caught up in the Regime change. This is politics that they do not want you to hear about, and there is no doubt that Blair Knews this and one reason why he left office.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 6th May 2008, Nemius wrote:When the defence industry goes out hawking its wares don't principle and pragmatism conjoin wherever and whenever a sale can be made?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 6th May 2008, greyhammyhamster wrote:Robert Peston doing what he does best, creating the most negative story full of doom and gloom aimed directly at the heart of British Industry and the British economy. No doubt if BAE lose the Saudi contract and lay off thousands of skilled workers this will open a whole new vista of opportunities to blame Gorden Brown or the Credit Crunch and perpertuate the spiral of misery and negative reporting. Are you sure your not an industrial spy planted in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to wreck the British Economy Mr Peston?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 6th May 2008, JohnConstable wrote:There is no piont in being mealy-mouthed about this.
There are colossal sums of money and significant numbers of jobs involved in these defense contracts.
If the end client wants a few 'extras', which may include monies deposited in offshore accounts, lots of booze, Rollers and Bentleys, leggy blonde prostitutes and so on - then you can be sure they will be supplied.
I worked for BAE in the early 1970's and it was going on then and simply defies belief that it has'nt continued since those far off days.
When you deal with the devil, you are going to become contaminated yourself.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 7th May 2008, d1sciple wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 7th May 2008, d1sciple wrote:I also want to point out that it is difficult to claim that you are dealing with the 'devil' when the practices of companies in your own country are dubious to say the least!
Clean up our own act and get good working practices in our companies before calling others 'devil'!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 7th May 2008, plainutz wrote:As an aerospace worker of many years I can state categorically that, when dealing with some potential aircraft buyers, a "special commission" had to be incorporated into the selling price. I believe that this investigation into BAe was instigated by some parties who wanted to hamper its US activities yet the US firm Lockheed was involved in the Netherlands scandal involving its F104 sales and, allegedly, Prince Bernhart.
This practice is essential to succeed in business in certain countries (I dare not name them) and is not illegal there. When in Rome one must conform. UK does not then apply so why try to shoot oneself in the foot?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)