Is it kindness that matters?

Back in the USSR: C-19 and the Normalising of a Surveillance State 9th April 2020 Professor Jo Crotty

The current C-19 pandemic has led to a number of very challenging questions. Of course, as a society we want to provide the best care, and minimise the number of deaths. In order to achieve this however, we have had to make some unprecedented sacrifices, not least with our civil liberties. For some, these are acceptable; London Mayor Sadiq Khan in calling for the ‘lockdown’ stated. ‘Our liberties and human rights need to be changed, curtailed, infringed – use whatever word you want’ in order to tackle the virus. For others, including high court judge, Lord Sumption, such curtailment should be undertaken with the utmost caution. It is not so much whether you agree with the police using drones to ‘catch’ people walking two by two in the Peak District, or a lone woman sitting on Aberystwyth beach being told that she is ‘breaking the law’; but on whose authority the police are acting? Proceeding on the expressed preference of the government rather than on a basis of what is lawful, may lead to the very police state that we, on this side of the now dismantled ‘Iron Curtain’, used to rail against. And so what of the former Eastern Bloc? There were high hopes in the West that the end of the Cold War would birth a range of pluralistic, open democratic societies like our own. Sadly, this has not come to pass. In the nearly 30 years since the break-up of the Soviet Union, we have seen the Russian Federation, pass laws that curtail freedom of the press, assembly and limit the scope of civil society. A recent tightening of the latter has led the closure of some of the Russian Federation’s most prominent NGOs. Formed during Perestroika, these included human rights organisation Memorial and environmental protection group Baikal Wave [1].

In response to C-19, the Russian government has taken the opportunity to increase surveillance to unprecedented levels. In Moscow, 100,000 facial recognition cameras have been installed to identify individuals ‘breaking quarantine’. Other provinces such as Nizhny Novgorod (250 miles from Moscow) have introduced an online pass system. Citizens may only leave their home once they have received online permission via a QR code. Geolocation and banking data is then used to track the individual to ensure compliance. Now the Russian authorities have access to geolocation and banking data, they can obtain other information about people’s private lives, associations, and activities that do not serve the goal of containing and preventing the spread of C-19. It is also unlikely that the facial recognition cameras now installed in Moscow, will be removed once this emergency is over. These are the type of surveillance and monitoring tools that the KGB could have only dreamed of! It is easy to think in the land of the Magna Carta, that this could not happen here. Yet, like 9/11 before it, a global crisis has let mass surveillance ‘genies’ out of the bottle. The permanency of legislation like the US Patriot Act, illustrates that once such genies are let out – they are difficult to put back in. We may have given away some of our civil liberties for the greater good – but these are only on loan. As a society we must ensure that such curtailments to ensure our safety, do not become permanent when this crisis is over. [1] For more on the management of Russia’s civil society see: - Ljubownikow, S. and Crotty, J. (2017) ‘Managing Boundaries: The Role of NonProfit Organisations in Russia’s Managed Democracy’. Sociology, 51 (5) 940-954 - Crotty J, Hall S M & Ljubownikow S (2014) Post-Soviet Civil Society Development in the Russian Federation: The Impact of the NGO Law, Europe Asia Studies, 66 (8): 1253-1269 Professor Jo Crotty is Director of the Institute for Social Responsibility and a Professor of Management at Edge Hill University.

Is it kindness that matters? 7th April 2020 Professor Kim Cassidy

There is no doubt that public interest in corporate social (ir) responsibility (CSR and CSIR) in the retail industry had been increasing dramatically over the past few years prior to the onset of COVID-19. Retailers of all shapes and sizes have, for some time, been taking steps to demonstrate socially responsible behaviours in order to reaffirm their position as good corporate citizens. These actions have been widely publicised to consumers and include offering targeted financial support for charities, sponsorship of local community events, changes to product range and environmentally-friendly packaging and initiatives to encourage equality and diversity in the workplace. The onset of COVID19 has generated a whole new level of interest in this agenda, prompting intense scrutiny of retail responses to the crisis. As a research team, we have already accumulated over 150 pages of field notes, documenting the actions being taken as well as the results of detailed scrutiny from the press, social media and trade bodies. From an academic perspective, there is much debate in the CSR/CSIR literature about what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘bad’ activity, and which stakeholders are best positioned to make an assessment [1]. Irrespective of the different perspectives, retail responses generally align to those classified on the spectrum of CSIR and CSR behaviours. At the ‘good’ end of the spectrum we see retailers doing all they can to safeguard their employees, customers and suppliers during this crisis. Superdrug for example, has promised full pay for parents in the workforce who are unable to work remotely and full pay, backdated to March 16, for anyone unable to work due to sickness or self-isolation. Many retailers are also offering support for the most vulnerable customers, with dedicated opening hours for the elderly and NHS workers. Early in the crisis Sainsbury agreed to introduce immediate payment terms for its suppliers

with under £100,000 turnover – a move that will benefit nearly 1,500 small businesses. Others appear to be going beyond the call of duty, diverting expertise and resources to fight the bigger cause. Boots, for example, is teaming up with the Government to operate testing facilities for NHS workers and supply volunteer healthcare clinicians as testers. B&Q’s parent company, Kingfisher, is also providing £1m of personal protective equipment – including protective eyewear and masks – and funding for health services across Europe. At the other ‘bad’ end of the scale, there are those who appear to be doing a bare minimum to comply with legislation and seem reluctant to prioritise employee welfare unless absolutely pressurised to do so by negative media coverage. The key question being asked by many retail commentators is what will be the long term impact of these activities on corporate image and brand reputation? Which activities will be remembered and which of these will have a positive (or negative) influence on future customer loyalty? According to a recent report [2] actions with three characteristics that will define retail businesses during this testing period. Retailers who show resilience, bravery and kindness, in dealings with stakeholders, employees, customers and society at large, will be those most likely to survive these turbulent times. It is the notion of kindness, incorporating ‘friendliness, generosity and consideration’ [3] which appears to align most closely with socially responsible behaviour and offers a useful lens to reflect on the long term impact. There are undoubtedly retailers who have been regularly undertaking acts of kindness long before the onset of COVID-19. They have kindness engrained in their DNA, and it influences all the strategic relationships they have with their stakeholders. For example, companies like Boots, the Cooperative Group, and Timpsons all fall into this category. The media and general public may not even be aware of their detailed track record of kind activity as selfpromotion is not the priority for these companies. They are kind because this quality resonates with the ethical and moral principles that drive their business. There is no doubt that many other retailers can be seen displaying acts of kindness during this period. In some cases these are surprising and often unexpected given the company performance and development to date. Such displays of kindness may make a good impression on stakeholders in the short term, but long-term survival may depend on how effectively kindness can be integrated into strategic intent post COVID 19. [1] For a review of the literature on CSIR see for example Riera, M. and Iborra, M., 2017. Corporate social irresponsibility: Review and conceptual boundaries. European Journal of Management and Business Economics. [2] www.myrtwellbeing.org.uk/the-futurebeyond-covid-19-/emerging-stronger-after -the-covid-19-crisis/491.article (accessed 6th April 2020) [3] OED definition of kindness is the ‘quality of being friendly, generous and considerate’ Professor Kim Cassidy is a Professor of Marketing at Edge Hill University.