8 ★ FINANCIAL TIMES Tuesday 27 August 2019A few warm words from
the G7 will get us nowhere
The G7 support for rainforest
restoration is fiddling while our planet
burns. To change course and solve our
environmental problems, we need to
make simple strategic decisions and
explain the consequences to our
populations: stop using fossil fuels; buy
locally; farm sustainably; and hold or
reduce our population to sustainable
levels. We need in particular, to
completely rethink our approach to
food production.
The globalisation of our food chain
has been a disaster. It has destroyed
much of the Asian rainforest and is
busy doing the same to the Amazon.
What will it take to stop this monster?
Not a few warm words from the G7 and
a few million pounds donated to
Amazon charities.
Unfortunately we do not have the
business or political leaders capable of
taking us through this crisis. It took a
courageous Scandinavian teenager to
show us that.
Our planetary environment is a
complex, interwoven, multifactorial
web of living organisms and global-
scale chemistry. Much of how it works,
we still do not understand, yet we
assume we can make global changes
with no consequences. One
consequence though is clear, if we lose
the Amazon and so pollute and
overexploit the oceans that we
adversely affect the phytoplanktons’
ability to produce oxygen, then it is
game over for all of us.
Lesley Ellis
Aboyne, Aberdeenshire, UKA 19th century PM
defends the status quo
Reading Amanda Mackenzie’s op-ed
“Guilt about climate change is good for
corporate chiefs” (August 22), I am
reminded of the response attributed to
Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess
of Salisbury, when approached by an
assistant about the need for change:
“Change? Change? Aren’t things bad
enough as they are?”
Dr John H V Gilbert
Vancouver, BC, CanadaEnsuring safe use of facial
recognition technology
I note with interest the EU’s proposed
plans for facial recognition (“EU plans
crackdown on use of facial recognition
in public areas”, August 23), following
the recent heavy backlash against the
technology. The use of the technology,
at this moment, is still in its infancy. As
such, regulation is key to the success offacial recognition in order to ensure
that all organisations and governments
take responsibility and are transparent
with their use of the technology.
Consumers need protection and to
know their rights, but regulations need
not hinder innovation and progress
with facial recognition. The private
sector already embraces new forms of
identity verification, and it benefits
consumers every single day, from
checking their bank balance to
ordering a food delivery — the services
they use are vastly more flexible,
convenient and secure for it.
Consumers use this responsibly every
day, so there is great potential for facial
recognition to grow into other areas of
our lives.
The question of human rights does
hold merit; today’s citizens have an
increasingly heightened sense of the
value of their personal data. People are
tired of their data being misused or
monetised without seeing obvious
value — so perhaps the real failure here
has been communicating the benefits
of the technology to the public, with
our safety in mind. So whichever side
of the debate you fall on, surely the
more constructive question for us to
ask is not “How can we stop this from
happening?” but rather “How can we
ensure the technology is used safely,
responsibly, and in the hands of
organisations we trust?”
Gus Tomlinson
Head of Strategy,
GBG,
London EC4, UKWhat is there to be afraid
of? Stand up to Trump!
Your headline “Trump tirade alarms
investors” (August 24) is alarming in
itself. It begs the question: Who are
these investors who are alarmed by the
statements from a man who wants to
buy Greenland? Can we take them
seriously and are they capable of
rational analysis?
After all, for how long will the world
and financial markets be held hostage,
bullied and rattled by such behaviour?
This is unprecedented in modern
history. It is time the world responded
too in an unprecedented manner and it
starts by ignoring silly tirades and
threats. It also means taking action by
responding rather than running for
cover.
Does this sound naive? Not really.
What consequences does the world fear
most by confronting the US president?
After all, what more can a US president
do in reality and what is the world
afraid of? Sanctions? Not if the rest of
us stop playing ball and there are many
ways to do that. Trade wars? Well, thatcard has been played and the reality is
hitting home with the possibility of a
global recession. The trade war with
China is not turning out to be the quick
win that was promised to Americans.
The Chinese are playing the long game
and sucking up the pain to retain their
dignity. As that strategy unravels,
Donald Trump is now targeting
Europe, calling the EU “worse than
China”, as he headed to the G7 meeting.
For how much longer will the world
stay silent in order to preserve a global
order underpinned by American
exceptionalism gone wrong?
Chandran Nair
Founder and CEO,
Global Institute For Tomorrow,
Hong KongLeave Powell and the Fed
alone to do their work
With regard to your editorial “Powell
must set out a predictable rates course”
(August 23): neither Jay Powell nor the
Federal Reserve can save the US or the
global economy from President Donald
Trump’s numerous reckless actions,
just one example being the stupid trade
war with China that he needlessly and
foolishly started. Moreover, as they try
to do so as part of their work, they
should consider the extent to which it
will further enable Mr Trump.
Mr Powell and the Fed have an
extremely difficult job to do at this
time, particularly with the president
bullying them and blaming them and
threatening their independence. Leave
Mr Powell and the Fed alone to do their
work as they see fit. Furthermore, how
on earth could Mr Powell or the Fed
“set out a predictable rates course”
under these impossible circumstances?
Chuck Sieck
Boca Raton, FL, USFatigue drained through my internal
organs while watching the trailer for
the upcoming newsroom drama,The
Morning Show, starring Jennifer
Aniston and Reese Witherspoon. Not
because the television show looked
boring or tired. Far from it. The series
from Apple’s new TV Plus streaming
service looks tantalising — and at a
reported cost of more than $15m per
episode, it damn well should be.
No, it was the prospect of fitting yet
another quality TV programme into
my already crowded schedule. Pity
the TV addict. I’m already struggling.
I’ve enjoyedThe Handmaid’s Tale,
Russian Doll andFleabagbut am
woefully behind onAtlanta,Years and
Yearsand (whispers)The Americans.
Don’t get me started on those I haven’t
started —ChernobylandSuccession.
This abundance of programmes
means that critics are counting down
until the bubble pops.
The transformation of TV’s image
began 20 years ago with HBO’sThe
Sopranos. The high production values,
the big budgets, the slow storylines
reversed the old snobbishness over
TV. The expansive stories and
complicated characters ofThe
Sopranos,The Wire andBreaking Bad
have frequently been described as
Shakespearean. AndMad Menhas
been compared to American writers
John Cheever and Raymond Carver.
As New Yorker TV critic Emily
Nussbaum pointed out, comparing
programmes to other artforms to
demonstrate gravitas shows a
resistance to the media being judgedon its own merits. The proliferation of
computers and smartphones also
dismantled the TV barriers. When I
was growing up in the 1970s and
1980s, high-minded parents would
ban television from their homes. Now
that streaming services are on
smartphones and devices, it’s
everywhere. Even the most
performative of TV refuseniks turn
out to have watched all five series of
Breaking Bad.
People say that no one on their
deathbed regrets not watching more
TV. They say that about attending
meetings too. But just as work is more
than meetings — so TV is more than
mindless watching (not that there’s
anything wrong with that anyway).
It can be an opportunity to bond
with family: cue teens slouching in
front of television on the sofa
alongside their parents. It can provide
a refuge from the bleak world beyond
the front door, as with theGreat British
Bake Off. It can inspire bonding
through water-cooler chats, most
recently aboutFleabag’s priest and H’s
identity inThe Line of Duty. It can also
be profound. Earlier this year, I
sobbed huge gulpy tears over Stephen
Graham’s moving performance in
Shane Meadows’ dark drama,The
Virtues. Sometimes it is all those
things.
With even more TV looming, I have
to find ways to fit it in.
The first option is to watch it at
work. This is only viable if you have a
private office — and apparently people
in possession of those didn’t get wherethey are by watching TV at their desk.
Anyway, as shown by recent legal
proceedings by Robert De Niro’s
production company against a former
employee who not only allegedly
embezzled funds but also watched
episodes ofFriends andSchitt’s Creekin
the office, this is a risky strategy. I can
just about get away with mindless
scrolling through Twitter as “work”
but it would be hard to justifyBig
Little Lies.
Pre-work is another option. This
strategy is deployed by writer Taffy
Brodesser-Akner, who recently told an
interviewer that every fifth morning
she watchesSharp Objects orThe Affair.
As I barely make it out of the door on
time, this would be too stressful. I
walk to work so the commute is out.
Then there is speed-watching. One
advocate of fast-forwarding through
TV told the Sun newspaper that
doubling the speed enabled him to
“finish an entireGame of Thronesin
one 40-minute sitting, giving him 20
minutes extra to watch “moreGame of
Thrones”.
This could be counterproductive.
One Reddit poster revealed that after
doing this himself, he was unable to
focus on any visual media whatsoever.
The fourth, is to stay up late. A
couple of years ago, Netflix’s chief
executive, Reed Hastings, shrugged off
competition, arguing that the
company was instead, “competing
with sleep”. This is a battle I already
seem to be losing.[email protected]Do not adjust
your set: there
really is too
much TV
Notebook
by Emma Jacobs
Ian Walmsley celebrates the UK’s
undoubted success in the field of
quantum computing (“The race in
quantum computing is not a zero-sum
game”, August 21). His comments
might usefully be qualified by an
appreciation of the realpolitik of
scientific capitalism.
The fact is that there are now several
major corporations in the US and Asia
with market values in the range of
$500bn-$1tn and with hundreds of
billions in deployable cash resource.
As illustrated by Alphabet’s
acquisition of the UK’s DeepMind,
these and others can simply buy anypromising start-up as an option on
future success. With that goes the
subjugation of the target company’s
intellectual property to the rules of the
acquiring company’s legal regime —
and also power over corporate policies
ranging from employment law to
taxation.
The UK’s burgeoning ecosystem
of start-ups in the field of quantum
computing and many others (for
example artificial intelligence and
fusion science) may simply act as a
glorified shopping mall for much
bigger international companies,
with the myriad consequencesin all the areas indicated above.
The Brexit catastrophe, no-deal or
not, will remove the UK from one
feasible response to these issues: pan-
EU initiatives of a scale that would
challenge even the biggest of global
behemoths. With a government devoid
of an appreciation of these issues, and
mired in the swamp of a constitutional
crisis, the UK is arguably now at its
most vulnerable, even before
Halloween.
Dr James E Dodd
Chairman,
The Witness Corporation,
London SW1, UKUK start-ups begin to look vulnerable
Letters
TUESDAY 27 AUGUST 2019Email:[email protected]
Include daytime telephone number and full address
Corrections:[email protected]
If you are not satisfied with the FT’s response to your complaint, you can appeal
to the FT Editorial Complaints Commissioner: [email protected]OPINION ON FT.COM
Central banks have lost much of their clout
Monetary policy is no longer enough to keep
the economy on track, writesAdair Turner
http://www.ft.com/opinion‘Give me a large alternative to the
Irish backstop’For many the £4.6bn deal by Hong
Kong billionaire Victor Li to acquire the
UK’s largest-listed pub and brewery
group, Greene King, came as a shock.
Across the country, one in four of Brit-
ain’s public houses have closed over the
past decade. On the surface it looks like
a bad time to take on exposure to Brit-
ain’s hospitality industry: casual dining
outfits like Jamie’s Italian have been
forced to cut costs and close branches
while a potential no-deal Brexit at the
end of October could hit any potential
customers’ spending power.
To others it was no surprise at all.
Instead Mr Li was just the latest in a
long line of investors to spot that there
are bargains available in Brexit Britain.
His purchase of the group follows the
sale of chipmaker Arm Holdings to
SoftBank, a deal for satellite maker
Inmarsat by a private-equity led con-
sortium and the buyout of Merlin
Entertainments by Blackstone. Overall
Greene King’s share price had fallen by
37 per cent since the 2016 EU referen-
dum, combined with a 15 per cent or so
fall in sterling against the Hong Kong
dollar.
While price may have played a role,
the truth is that the death of the British
pub has been greatly exaggerated. Mr
Li is betting that those which have sur-
vived the closures will thrive. The Li
family, who also own Northumbrian
Water, Wales & West Utilities and the
UBS headquarters in London, tend to
focus on infrastructure investment
with an asset base and predictable cash
flows. Pubs, the deal suggests, might
fulfil a similar role to water companies
with a portfolio of real estate across the
UK and predictable revenues from reg-
ular drinkers.
The disappearance of pubs reflected
a number of factors. Among them:
changing tastes in a younger genera-
tion of drinkers. Boozers now have to
compete with a vast variety of distrac-tions. Young, health-conscious drink-
ers are also considering teetotalling,
turning to non-alcoholic beers and
spirits. Some publicans say the 2007
smoking ban in pubs, just a year before
the financial crisis, drove away
patrons, while enhancing the appeal of
buying booze from supermarkets to
drink at home — a cheaper option.
On top of that, many pubs have to
face the pressure of high business rates,
a blight across the high street, and beer
duty. This tax on beer has made it
impossible for many establishments to
compete with supermarkets. Earlier
this month the chief executive of
Marston’s, one of the UK’s largest brew-
ers, called on prime minister Boris
Johnson to reduce the duty.
But while the number of pubs has
fallen, those that remain are doing bet-
ter than ever. According to the UK’s
Office for National Statistics, revenue
per venue increased by 13 per cent
between 2008 and 2016. Canny land-
lords have improved their food offering
and focused on tourist hotspots to
increase spending. The average pub
has grown in size and hired more staff.
There have been very few closures at all
in tourist areas such as the Scottish
Highlands or in seaside resorts such as
Blackpool and Scarborough.
Pubs have always adapted and are
doing so again. The most hope is
offered by those who have been willing
to innovate. Loungers, a hybrid of “res-
taurant, British pub and coffee shop
culture”, has bucked the high street
downturn with its varied offerings,
from flat whites to IPAs.
Others have shied away from the
move towards food and are focusing on
craft beer and the plethora of artisan
gins, new spins on British traditions.
One part of the country has seen no pub
closures at all: in fact, within the hip-
ster mecca of Hackney, in east London,
the number of pubs is rising.Deal for the UK’s largest chain is a vote of confidence in the sector
Death of Britain’s pubs
has been exaggerated
As anti-government protests in Hong
Kong continue, businesses are coming
under fierce pressure from China to
prevent their employees from taking
part. HSBC and S tandard Chartered,
the UK banks, last week became the
latest to place advertisements calling
for a peaceful resolution.
Hong Kong’s special status within
China under “one country, two
systems” since the UK handover in
1997, is endangered by the stand-off. So
is its appeal to investors and companies
as a stable entrepôt between China and
the rest of the world, with independent
courts and rule of law.
Since China forced the departure of
Rupert Hogg, Cathay Pacific’s chief
executive, for adopting what it saw as
too liberal a stance on protests, others
have felt the need to show loyalty.
Chinese media outlets have piled
pressure on them to dismiss employees
who call for greater democracy.
There is nothing wrong with reject-
ing violence, calling for negotiations
between Hong Kong’s government and
protesters, and backing one country,
two systems. But an enterprise that
meekly takes its line from Beijing, and
tries to escape scrutiny, is storing up
trouble for its own future.
China has huge leverage, especially
over Hong Kong stalwarts such as
Swire, which controls Cathay, and
banks such as HSBC, for which Hong
Kong and China are immensely valua-
ble. Simply by threatening to block
Cathay’s aircraft from flying over the
mainland, it imposed its will.
Donald Trump, US president, has
inflamed trade tensions between the
US and China and wants to exclude
Huawei, the Chinese technology group,
from western mobile networks.
China’s treatment of Hong Kong
businesses shows that it is also ready to
throw its economic weight around.
In the short term, shareholder inter-ests appear to dictate falling in line with
China. But it is not a simple calculation;
when auditing firms including PwC
issued statements dissociating them-
selves from employees who had backed
the protests, they placed their global
brands on the line.
Nor are shareholders their only
constituency. As US businesses move
towards a “stakeholder” approach,
companies in Hong Kong that down-
play rights of employees for the sake of
market access make themselves look
hypocritical or worse.
Squeezing corporate autonomy in
Hong Kong has risks for China. The
city’s safe-haven status suits mainland
companies and tycoons who keep
investment offices there. The security
of its laws draws them equally.
China last week unveiled a plan for
further reforms in Shenzhen, just over
the mainland border from Hong Kong.
It wants to turn Shenzhen into an
example of “law and order and civilisa-
tion”, as well as making it more
attractive as a centre for financial and
professional services firms.
The message that China has an alter-
native if one country, two systems fails
was clear. But even if Shenzhen
becomes a rival to Hong Kong for
Chinese investors, the country would
suffer immense damage to its interna-
tional credibility from an unhappy
outcome to the protests.
Businesses need not engage in a war
of words with China. But they must be
sure not to abandon their principles —
or their duty of care to employees — in
placating Beijing. Both in public and
private, they should demonstrate
loyalty to Hong Kong’s values.
Those values include the rights to
freedom of speech and assembly,
which are listed in the basic law. Busi-
nesses should try to help protests to a
peaceful resolution, but not one that
betrays Hong Kong itself.China’s pressure to fall meekly in line over protests should be resisted
Businesses have a duty to
Hong Kong employees
Business and society win
when people feel valued
You report (“Big companies urged to
declare ‘social purpose’ as focus on
shareholders wanes”, August 23) an
initiative to require company directors
to sign off on a purpose statement and
the material factors to delivering on it.
Hot on the heels of the US Business
Roundtable’s commitment to purpose,
it offers one way for boards to make
clear their commitment and what it
entails.
After the financial crisis, on
September 29 2010, you published an
interesting letter, headlined “Financial
leaders pledge excellence and
integrity”, in which a distinguished
collection of City leaders stated that
“without the development and
inculcation of a more enlightened
culture, regulatory... actions alone
will not suffice”. Experience since then
has only confirmed the truth of this,
even if it has been more honoured in
the breach.
If, as many of us deeply hope, more
business leaders are now serious about
becoming purpose-led it demands a
focus on culture and behaviour — a
commitment to becoming healthy
social organisations where people are
valued and respected, as employees,
customers and communities.
Business and society both win when
people at work see themselves as
valued members of a winning team on
a worthwhile mission to better their
fellow citizens and themselves.
Focusing on statements and reporting
alone risks diverting attention from the
fundamental mindset change needed
to achieve this, which as the US
business leaders remarkably state, is
all about enabling people “to live a life
of dignity and meaning”.
In business as in life, unless there
grows a desire and motivation for
change to go beyond obligation and
compliance towards striving to be the
best we can be it cannot ultimately
work.
Charles Wookey
Chief Executive,
A Blueprint for a Better Business,
London EC1, UKWhat works in America
can work for India too
In your report “Modi attacked over
plan to overhaul elections” (August
22), about Narendra Modi’s idea to
hold simultaneous national and state
elections in India, you quote Professor
Kanchan Chandra of New York
University warning that a single date
for both polls would damage
democracy. Simultaneous elections,
she fears, would allow prime minister
Modi to manipulate voters by reducing
the chances of people splitting their
vote for different levels of government.
Americans will simultaneously vote
for president, the entire lower house of
Congress, 34 per cent of the Senate, 13
governorships, 44 state legislatures
and thousands of municipal offices on
November 3 2020. Should we be
similarly distressed about the alleged
evils of simultaneous elections in
America and their alleged threat to
democracy?
Joydeep Mukherji
New York, NY, USAUGUST 27 2019 Section:Features Time: 26/8/2019 - 18: 14 User: nicola.davison Page Name: LEADER USA, Part,Page,Edition: USA, 8, 1
RELEASED BY "What's News"
vk.com/wsnwsTELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws