Business Rivalry Needs To Be Ethical

The ever peculiar Kenyans are never short of vitukos (surprises). A recent one is more than amusing. It has even revealed a relatively regressive term by Kenyan Standards. How else can one explain the conduct of two men who are said to be practicing polyandry? Upon realizing that amicably sharing one spouse could be more beneficial than harmful (based on their thinking), the gentle men called off their fights and therefore entrenched rivalry. Instead, they decided to bury the hatchet and move on peacefully as co-spouses of one lovely and most probably lucky woman.

The eventual repercussions aside, one would wish that similar attitudes are embraced by business entities that are permanently fighting for the king or is it queen? There have been numerous episodes of intense business rivalry that have been witnessed in recent years. Some prominent ones include, Castle Brewing versus East African Breweries ltd that led to the re-location of the former from Kenya; Mastermind Tobacco versus British American Tobacco (BAT); Safaricom versus Bharti Airtel; East African Breweries versus Kiroche Breweries of Naivasha and many more. Internationally, there have been cases such as Google versus Yahoo and also Microsoft versus Apple Computers amongst others.

Added to this is still ongoing rivalry between the detergent pair of Omo and Ariel. Available information indicates that Omo controls 28.2 % of the industry, whereas the latter controls 24.4 % of the same. It is the urge for increasing and defending this market share that has led to advertisements that are now subject to court action. However, this rivalry negates further discussion through this piece, though we will keep watching the developments. But what, is this rivalry business all about?

Obviously, there are many pros and cons that result from business rivalry, which is largely driven by fighting for retention or gain for market share. Top of the gains is improved quality of services for the customer. But, the main consideration is whether the rivalry is ethical or not? This is seemingly a million dollar question whose answer depends on how each case is perceived.

Nevertheless, mention of ethical business practices takes me back to the beginning of the new millennium.  The setting was a seminar on business values and ethics that involved some 40 or so of us. About two thirds belonged to generation Y whereas only a third could be assigned to generation x.  Ideally, the seminar was highly practical and comprised mostly of discussions between right and challenged business values and practices.

This high order thinking seminar involved deliberations on global business trends and routine experiences, mainly guided by application of moral principles, legal principles as well as profit motives.  Obviously, moral principles revolve around fairness, integrity, social responsibility and other ‘natural’ standards expected of each of us. Legal principles as is implied are about compliance with laws of the land.

Just like we natural persons are expected to be good citizens, business entities are likewise supposed to project good citizenship, though as artificial persons.  One global requirement is that they need to balance the profit motive with the other principles.  But, does this actually happen?

Our discussions during the seminar revolved around numerous case studies prevailing then, in both the local and international scene.  It is still memorable how the generation Y colleagues were largely influenced by the thoughts on occurrences around us. Seemingly, all were for replicating the societal convenience of doing like everybody else. Why be different after all? Why make life difficult whereas others are enjoying? That seemed to be the premise.

Conversely, the generation x participants were of the view that replicating the value challenge activities was largely the cause of most societal predicament. The same had by then resulted to endemic levels of corruption amongst other societal vices. It was felt that lack of knowledge especially on the impact of such actions, was a clear setback. Thus, those who become aware may never be forgiven, if they join in the continued escalation of the situation.

Meanwhile, business rivalry is one of the known and recognized forces of change. It is perceived either positively or negatively depending on the perspectives of the various stakeholders. Whatever the case, it brings innovation and creativity for the benefit of consumers and more appropriately the best interests of humanity. Occasionally, it tones down the negative impacts of the profit motive and other unfair practices.

Did we not witness the reduction on mobile calling charges driven by business rivalry between Safaricom and Airtel? What of the beginning of installation of branded coolers in every beer place, during the rivalry between Castle Brewing and East African Breweries Ltd? Indeed, we did and therefore benefited invaluably from the business rivalry. Didn’t we?

In the rivalry between BAT and Mastermind Tobacco, the combatants had gone to the extent of buying row materials from farmers who had rubbished contractual obligations with the sponsoring company. Infringement of contractual obligations was certainly irregular and therefore unsustainable.

Notably, rivalry as one of the forces of competition will always be a factor in competitive business environment. Nevertheless, it needs to be premised on ethical practices and not just compliance with the laws of the land. As consumers and observers, we may only need to be sure that the rivalry does not infringe the moral aspects, therefore interfering with our rights. If not, the legal aspects can be left to the attention of law enforcers.

(This article was first published in the September 2013 issue of the  Small and Medium Enterprise Magazine)