Tone Deaf

The “military operation” is still going on and it is dreadful to watch with its indiscriminate killing of civilians. I do try to not doom scroll, but the news is there and I do get tired and anxious. It takes a lot of energy to try to get stuff done – and I do have this other stuff hanging over my head right now.

Anyway, there is a group of people, maybe professors, who are tracking which companies leave Russia and which stay. I’m sure most Americans automatically thinks US companies should leave as a way of enforcing and strengthening the sanctions.

The decision to leave or stay might be a little trickier. For pharmaceutical companies, there is a notion of the doctors’ Hippocratic Oath which I have always thought of doing no harm kind of thing. The oath is really a set of ethical rules, but I imagine it is mainly about helping out those who are hurt or ill. I always read about doctors in war zones aiding those maimed or shot, no matter which side of the war the injured comes from. So, in the case of the pharmaceuticals, they are remaining in Russia for humanitarian reasons of providing health services to the people.

That makes sense to me.

Others have said that they are remaining to provide their employees jobs and income. That reasoning is weakened by other companies that have moved their employees out of Russia and Ukraine, but it might still be a valid reason. It’s just weak.

There are some companies, like the Koch Industries, that have provided no reason and that position is very, very, very weak. I haven’t seen any statement from Koch as to the reason for remaining in Russia. The overall impression of such companies then becomes selfish and greedy. As a matter of fact, ethics lawyers say that any Congressional leaders that have received donations from Koch Industries should return them because such money puts them in a compromising position.

So, some companies have provided humanitarian reasons for staying in Russia while others have been silent. Those that provided humanitarian reasons at least have thought through the implications of staying in Russia and have made some hard ethical choices. You might not totally like their choices but there are some justifications. The choices are hard.

The silent ones look like their decisions are not based on ethics or humanitarian so come off as greedy.

As the Ukrainian president said it, “Peace before profits”. I have also heard “Principle before profits”. The silent ones are putting profits before principle/peace, at least that is the appearance.

I bring up all of this because there is Goldman Sachs’ CEO who said it is not financial businesses’ place to isolate Russia. That statement is tone deaf in this era of ESG. Companies are being asked by employees, customers, and others to make a stand on some of the issues of the day so saying, “It’s not our job to be activists in Russia”. He needs to have a better talking point. But he is complying with the sanctions which I just found out.

My research at a site, that identifies which companies pulled out of Russia and which are staying in, indicated that Goldman Sachs left Russia but is still buying Russian debt, so they are in a sense still supporting Russia by providing money in exchange for debt. At least, that is how I understand it. But according to another article, buying debt does not violate the sanctions, so Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions are technically complying with the sanctions. Technically.