In bad company
The story of the first multinational is fraught with scandal and success. The East India Co. has shaped the way we see MNCs today
The late Kenneth lay never met nick robins it is highly unlikely that he had ever read robin’s the corporation that changed the world before he went to the great corporation in the sky. One wishes , however, that the London based robins an historian with a 20 years ld experience in corporate responsibility issues, had written his book before the chairman and CEO of enron had disgraced himself and his company by acts of corporate abuse and by acts of corporate abuse and fraud. Perhaps then, enron would have thought twice about charting the course once taken by the world’s first multinational giant the East India Co.
In India to publicize his book Robins says it was pure coincidence that the biggest scandal in corporate history was unfolding in the united states while he was writing his book.” I was in Bangladesh during the nineties as an investment funds expert, when, to illustrate a point, I mentioned the east India company to my surprise, the response was, oh yes, the people who used to chop off our weavers’ thumbs’. That gave me a very different picture of the company than I had in England. Then, in 2000. I was walking along leaden hall street to visit the site of the old East India company’s headquarters. To my shock there was no sign of the spot where East India House stood. Not even a plaque.”
The physical absence of a Company past in the home of the company got Robins thinking this was a pioneer of modern global trade that would become a case study for many a boardroom. And yet, the company was a sub-chapter of history , an introductory passage to the more interesting British Raj.
As he realized in Bangladesh, the company elicits different responses in Britain and in India. In Britain, it is either part of a curio past with the occasional museum show , or an issue that remains vaguely known. ”this was a private corporation with social responsibilities- to provide the British people with revenue. Not unlike what many corporations believe themselves to be.
Robins talks about the strident criticisms launched in the company’s 18th century heyday from worthies like Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and Karl Marx. For them, both the company as well as its protagonists like Robert Clive and Warren Hastings were running offshore operations while embezzling the people of India.
But if there was such a ruckus in liberal Britain over the company’s going-on why did it continue to operate in India between 1858, the year the British rule in India, and 1874, when the company was finally dissolved? Robins is unsure whether the transition from company to crown was so clear –cut as being either a benign corrective or a nefarious under- the – table deal. There were divisions both in and outside the company regarding the excesses that were being committed in the name of commerce.
But as robins points out.” The company’s directors wanted their representatives in India to govern leniently and send more money to practice strict justice and moderation in tax collection and towards Indian sovereign states, and send more money.” The parallels with the modern view of MNC’s and good commercial interest are obvious.
And yet , robins warns us against seeing the company as a modern-day enterprise. ”there are major differences, of course , the most obvious being that the company obtained a royal charter to conduct it’s trade as a monopoly in the east. It would be wrong to see a 18th century corporation with 21st century eyes. But the basic financial mechanism and its business dynamics were remarkably modern.”
But it is quite clear that robins has his own opinion about the company’s ethics. “ orientalists such as William Jones and even Warren Hastings were truly interested and respected the civilization forces of India. I would be unwise to forget the company’s core business sending revenue to Britain regardless of the hardships this caused the people of India. This became a genuine matter of outrage for a lot of people back in Britain.” For Robins, the younger generation of Britons, especially south Asian Britons, are keener to know about the company past than their parents or grandparents. And what does robins make of MNCs such as the Tatas and mitral steel making inroads in the west? People judge them by their corporate prowess. The tatas have an impeccable record of corporate ethics and that’s all that matters.”
If only the East India Company had followed the Tata model instead of inspiring the Enrons of the world, then we wouldn’t have reached for our guns each time we hear the word MNC.
[/SIZE]
The story of the first multinational is fraught with scandal and success. The East India Co. has shaped the way we see MNCs today
The late Kenneth lay never met nick robins it is highly unlikely that he had ever read robin’s the corporation that changed the world before he went to the great corporation in the sky. One wishes , however, that the London based robins an historian with a 20 years ld experience in corporate responsibility issues, had written his book before the chairman and CEO of enron had disgraced himself and his company by acts of corporate abuse and by acts of corporate abuse and fraud. Perhaps then, enron would have thought twice about charting the course once taken by the world’s first multinational giant the East India Co.
In India to publicize his book Robins says it was pure coincidence that the biggest scandal in corporate history was unfolding in the united states while he was writing his book.” I was in Bangladesh during the nineties as an investment funds expert, when, to illustrate a point, I mentioned the east India company to my surprise, the response was, oh yes, the people who used to chop off our weavers’ thumbs’. That gave me a very different picture of the company than I had in England. Then, in 2000. I was walking along leaden hall street to visit the site of the old East India company’s headquarters. To my shock there was no sign of the spot where East India House stood. Not even a plaque.”
The physical absence of a Company past in the home of the company got Robins thinking this was a pioneer of modern global trade that would become a case study for many a boardroom. And yet, the company was a sub-chapter of history , an introductory passage to the more interesting British Raj.
As he realized in Bangladesh, the company elicits different responses in Britain and in India. In Britain, it is either part of a curio past with the occasional museum show , or an issue that remains vaguely known. ”this was a private corporation with social responsibilities- to provide the British people with revenue. Not unlike what many corporations believe themselves to be.
Robins talks about the strident criticisms launched in the company’s 18th century heyday from worthies like Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and Karl Marx. For them, both the company as well as its protagonists like Robert Clive and Warren Hastings were running offshore operations while embezzling the people of India.
But if there was such a ruckus in liberal Britain over the company’s going-on why did it continue to operate in India between 1858, the year the British rule in India, and 1874, when the company was finally dissolved? Robins is unsure whether the transition from company to crown was so clear –cut as being either a benign corrective or a nefarious under- the – table deal. There were divisions both in and outside the company regarding the excesses that were being committed in the name of commerce.
But as robins points out.” The company’s directors wanted their representatives in India to govern leniently and send more money to practice strict justice and moderation in tax collection and towards Indian sovereign states, and send more money.” The parallels with the modern view of MNC’s and good commercial interest are obvious.
And yet , robins warns us against seeing the company as a modern-day enterprise. ”there are major differences, of course , the most obvious being that the company obtained a royal charter to conduct it’s trade as a monopoly in the east. It would be wrong to see a 18th century corporation with 21st century eyes. But the basic financial mechanism and its business dynamics were remarkably modern.”
But it is quite clear that robins has his own opinion about the company’s ethics. “ orientalists such as William Jones and even Warren Hastings were truly interested and respected the civilization forces of India. I would be unwise to forget the company’s core business sending revenue to Britain regardless of the hardships this caused the people of India. This became a genuine matter of outrage for a lot of people back in Britain.” For Robins, the younger generation of Britons, especially south Asian Britons, are keener to know about the company past than their parents or grandparents. And what does robins make of MNCs such as the Tatas and mitral steel making inroads in the west? People judge them by their corporate prowess. The tatas have an impeccable record of corporate ethics and that’s all that matters.”
If only the East India Company had followed the Tata model instead of inspiring the Enrons of the world, then we wouldn’t have reached for our guns each time we hear the word MNC.
[/SIZE]