I'm no Saint-Anthony. Fortunate initiative, that of the European Movement Germany of devoting a colloquium (organised in cooperation with "Present European Realities" and the "International Centre for European Training", with the assistance of the Dresdner Bank) on the enterprise ethic. The significance and question that it implies are clear: has enterprise also to respond to "moral demands"? Most of the work took place, last Saturday, in three parallel workshops. Not having, as had Saint-Anthony, the gift of being everywhere at once, I was only able to participate in the one that pondered the existence of common values in "enterprise culture" in the countries of the EU.
Generally-speaking, not a single participant doubted the demand for ethical values in companies. The existence of opposing ideas (generally attributed to the Anglo-American world, with repeated references to Mrs. Thatcher) was admitted, but they were generally rejected. Certainly, a company must make a profit and be competitive; otherwise, it could not survive and ethical problems would not even arise, as there would be neither work not workers. But, while respecting the demands of competitiveness, room must be made for other obligations, regarding both the staff and clients, as well as the consumers. Would the answer have been as unanimous a few years ago?
Priority to the shareholders? Among the rapporteurs, Wolfgang Feibert, of the "Europe" bureau of the Order of Jesuits, believed in the possibility of a certain convergence in the EU. Sure, "enterprise cultures" bear the stamp of national cultures, traditions and ways of life, which at times leads to oppositions (the speaker provided some picturesque examples). But the common elements are already many, notably in the way work is organised; the Charter of Fundamental Rights (should it take effect) and the emergence (which we hope imminent) of the European limited company could contribute to broadening and consolidating these. However, according to Mr. Feibert, "the European social model" could be endangered by the tendency, he observes in EU institutions, of putting the interests of shareholders over those of the personnel. To which he was told that the draft legislation over public takeover bids, drawn up by the European Commission along lines that played into the hands of the shareholders, had been rejected by the European Parliament, and that the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) is listened to in Brussels just as much as Unice. Feibert's conclusion: the generalisation of co-management could be the recipe to achieve "a Europe that succeeds".
Some participants even disputed the very principle of an "enterprise culture" for the EU: cultural differences and traditions shaped by history do exist and need respecting. The conclusion on this point was that the goal was not uniformity, but the garnering of certain fundamental common points enabling the enterprises of different countries to cooperate effectively in a single European area.
In the East, something new. The debate broadened to the situation in the countries of Central and Easter Europe. Professor Francois Bafoil, Research Director at the CNRS (France), rapporteur on the subject was initially critical and pessimistic. In the East, it is not that the "enterprise culture" is different; it simply doesn't exist. During half a century of Communist rule, all the elements that make up an enterprise culture were scorned: not only the notions of competitiveness and efficiency, but also product quality, the respect of the environment, the need to make a profit. For their part, Western companies that wanted to set up business in Central and Eastern Europe exclusively exported the principle of return (with a toughness "worse than Mrs. Thatcher") totally neglecting social values. Any hope of common values under these conditions? No; during the debates opinions became clear and a certain amount of optimism emerged; in the East, a new generation of entrepreneurs understand what "enterprise culture" means, and this enables Western entrepreneurs to introduce social and trade union values too, notably collective contracts. The danger resides rather, as the Director of the International Centre for European Training, Ferdinand Graf Kinsky (who has dual German and Czech nationality) observed, in the fact that the young having gained higher education in the East only dream of making a career in the West. Now that's something important to think about, in anticipation of enlargement.
The Conclusion, according to the lawyer Stefan Entel, third rapporteur, is that cultural differences are undeniable but in no way prevent cooperation. The common points between the different enterprise cultures in the EU and the possibilities of "doing things together" are more numerous than we may be led to believe. In this field too, a "European model" does indeed exist. (F.R.)