OCR Text |
Show fairs functions have been upgraded and their staffs strengthened. Company representation in the national and state capitols has been strengthened. Arrangements have been made to survey public attitudes regularly and to monitor social, political, and scientific trends and developments. Both external and internal communications have been expanded, but relatively less reliance is placed on influencing stakeholders and relatively more on participating with them to arrive at workable solutions. The reach has been extended downward to the grass roots to involve employees as the company's ambassadors to the local communities. INTEGRATING SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL GOALS Now in setting strategic plans, care is taken to integrate social goals with the financial goals and objectives. There is also a new dimension of management being added, both at the board level and in senior management, to identify the critical policy issues, propose strategies for corporate adoption, and audit their implementation and effectiveness. A Public Issues Committee, with membership largely from the outside directors, is more and more in evidence on the boards of the larger companies. There is also broadened management training and development, often involving the use of outside consultants and academics, to develop employees and managers with a more socially sensitive management style. Managers are encouraged to develop closer relationships with government and involve themselves in emerging policy initiatives. There is a far more definite plan to build constructive contacts with members of government both at the legislative and at the ministerial levels. To the extent that the law allows, there is also a more determined effort to en-courage their people to work for the election of candidates sympathetic to the corporate view. It is far too early to tell whether these measures will prove effective in dealing with all or most of the six areas with which corporate executives are concerned. Yet, certainly they are steps in the right direction in meeting these issues in one's own country. They may prove less effective in dealing with the rising trend toward excessive nationalism. The multinational company proceeds at great peril when it attempts to interfere in the political process of the host country. Most multinationals avoid this at all costs and rely on good conduct for safe passage. NATIONALISM vs. THE NATIONAL INTEREST Every government and every people must pursue policies of enlightened self-interest. The national interest is paramount. But patriotism becomes self-defeating nationalism if it deteriorates into a deliberate and calculated program to have participants in the economic arena play by different rules depending upon their corporate citizenship. The case must rest upon whether such a policy of nationalism does in fact serve the national interest. The facts strongly suggest otherwise. The record shows that, with few exceptions, the national interest is best served in both mature and developing economies by the free flow of in-vestments, goods, and services across national boundaries. These flows are necessary to maintain full employment, optimize economic growth on a sustainable basis, and to achieve an enhanced standard of living. Nothing is more sensitive to unfair or discriminatory treatment than foreign investment. It shuns any neighborhood where it does not encounter the friendliest of feelings. It takes offense quickly and forgives slowly. In today's world no nation can afford the luxury of self-indulgent nationalism. Nationalism has its roots in emotion, not in logic. It appeals to prejudice, not to the intellect. It prospers among the unthinking and the uninformed. Unfortunately, often those in a position to inform find it more self-serving to fan the flames of nationalism rather than to help quench the fire. As an international company, Utah's management must be and is particularly sensitive to the sixth area of concern economic nationalism. Utah does not claim that its performance in this respect has been flawless, but we contend that it will measure up well under the most critical examination and comparison. UTAH BETS ON AUSTRALIA In 1950, The Utah Construction Company negotiated a contract with the state of Victoria to build the Big Eildon Weir. It was a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, calling for little investment on Utah's part but calling for the transfer of technology, for Utah was skilled in the moving of earth on a massive scale. Even though the funding of the contract was interrupted, and the State of Victoria not able to carry out the project precisely as planned, Utah liked what it found in Australia and decided to open a permanent office in Australia. In the early 1950's, Australia was not considered an especially attractive area for foreign investment. Other areas of the world where the markets were larger and the location more advantageous were deemed more appealing. Utah saw Australia in a different perspective. We were impressed with the quality of its people. We shared the same respect for law and fair play. In our view, Australia was a country ready for development and in that respect had much in common with the Far West in the United States where The Utah Construction Company had sharpened its skills since it was founded in 1900. From 1950 until now, Utah has demonstrated its confidence in Australia in a practical way. For the first 17 years it was difficult to demonstrate that this confidence was well placed. From 1950 through 1967 the net result was that Utah's various entities in Australia operated at a small loss. Some years were profitable and in these we had paid dividends to the U.S. parent totaling $1,529,000, all paid prior to 1958 when under Australian law we were considered a pri-vate company and required to pay 4 |