Caux 2001

Globalizing Responsibility – Expanding Hearts
The Eighth Annual Junior Round Table Meeting
Caux, Switzerland
July 14-19, 2001

The eighth annual meeting of the Junior Round Table (JRT) took a place during the annual Caux Conference for Business and Industry (CCBI), July 14-19, 2001, at Mountain House, the international conference center of Initiatives of Change, in Caux, Switzerland. The meeting gathered fifteen young professionals from Croatia, The Netherlands, United King­dom, Ukraine and the United States, to discuss the theme:  Globalizing Responsibility – Expanding Hearts.  Several participants from the “Foundations for Freedom” program, which was meeting concurrently at Mountain House, joined the JRT meeting. 

Day 1 – Saturday, July 14, 2001

The formal part of meeting started with an opening welcome session, led by Steven Greisdorf (United States) and Menso Fermin (Netherlands), two members of the JRT Executive Committee. Participants were encouraged to share from their own personal experiences as the daily sessions took place. They were also encouraged to network with the participants in other CCBI forums, one of the real strengths of the time in Caux.

Day 2 – Sunday, July 15, 2001

“The post modern economy of Western Europe and the USA has led to despair!” With this challenging hypothesis, Steven Young, global executive director of the Caux Round Table and a US-based lawyer opened up the Sunday morning session. 

In support of his hypothesis, Young painted the caricature picture of the current western society: crazy young adults, believing well into their forty’s that they should behave as though they were teenagers, having no purpose in life, lacking character. Most university graduates have no idea of what they should do after graduation. They are experiencing life with "I" being the center of the universe, high expectations and a culture of victimization. Based on this caricature, Young’s conclusion was that the west has no foreseeable development and hence is in despair! Eastern Europe, on the other hand is experiencing the frustrations of the change from a modern towards a post-modern economy: frustration, but also the challenge and purpose of making things better. A heated debate, fostered by participants from both Eastern and Western Europe, followed and was fuelled by Young’s legal-based discussion methods (the traditional way of training lawyers in the USA). In this debate, Young acted as the devil’s advocate, challenged the depth and thoroughness of our reasoning. Is there a general truth? What is society? What happens when we abuse freedom? Participants in the discussion quickly became aware of the paradox of consequences.

Although the debate aroused many emotions and opposition against the analysis, it also recognized many of the mentioned symbols of escapism being present in our current society (both Eastern and Western). The question becomes: what is the role we play? And, who will benefit from a role well played. In other words, what is our vocation, our calling! “In vocation, one senses one’s value to others and others respond emotionally to one’s pleasure in work or calling. Both self and others are affirmed simultaneously”. The question Young sent the JRT home with is: How do we encourage people to think about their vocation?

Day two’s afternoon hike, a long-standing tradition in the JRT, was cancelled due to inclement weather.

Day 3 – Monday, July 16, 2001

For the first time this year, the JRT arranged to hold joint sessions with other forums that were meeting during the CCBI.  A joint session with the forum on Information and Communications Technology gave us a closer look on the positive and negative impacts of information and e-technology, especially in dealing with the less privileged.  Various case studies of current or proposed projects in this field gave participants a glimpse of how individuals were taking responsibility for addressing some of the intractable problems associated with poverty.

In the afternoon of Day 3, participants began the first of a two-session case study on the Nestlé Corporation.  The idea to have a case study was initiated during the JRT Interim Meeting in Croatia (March 2001) and was widely supported.  The case study under discussion focused on the ongoing boycott of Nestlé products by groups opposed to their methods of marketing breast milk substitutes in developing (and developed) countries.  Participants, including some from the Foundations for Freedom program, were divided into three groups:  Boycotting organizations, the Nestlé Corporation, and the World Health Organization, which has issued guidelines on the subject.  During Day 1, participants gathered as groups to develop their case.  They day’s discussion concluded with opening arguments by all parties.

Tom Delfgaauw, Vice President for Sustainable Development, Shell Corporation, presented a lecture entitled “Shell Since Brent Spar” to a plenary gathering of the CCBI.  Shell’s attention to the “triple-bottom line” of finances, social impact, and the environment, were explained in some detail.  A time for questions and answers provided additional scope for understanding how Shell is emerging as a socially responsible company.

Day 4 – Tuesday, July 17, 2001

The second joint session was held with the Environmental Forum, meeting for the first time this summer at Caux.  The discussion, based on a paper distributed by Dr. Joanna Giecewicz, convener of the Environment Forum, focused on green space in relation to living and working spaces.  Participants were encouraged to think about their own communities and how these communities were evolving with regard to development and the preservation of natural green areas.

The second session of the case study took place in the afternoon.  The groups had prepared arguments in relation to their stand on the issue.  Steven Greisdorf convened the session, providing a framework for participant discussions.  The debate focused on the possibilities available to Nestlé to work with boycotters, rather than against them.  The boycott group offered several solutions, including the development of clean drinking water facilities in developing countries, to stem the disease caused by using breast milk substitutes with unclean water.  In general, the discussion provided an opportunity for participants to explore how these issues can be interpreted/misinterpreted and how entrenched positions can serve to hinder possible solutions.

Philippe Levy, President, Transparency International, Switzerland, delivered the Caux Lecture, an annual speech open to conference participants and the general public.  Levy spoke on the ongoing challenge of corruption and the steps that were being taken by his organization and others to address these issues.  The costs associated with corruption are felt at all levels, he indicated, but particularly among those least able to bear them.

Day 5 – July 18, 2001

The morning session was used to discuss further some of the ideas and themes that had emerged over the past several days.  Participants were encouraged by the nature of the discussions, but had hoped for more depth on some of the topics.  Additionally, it was felt that specific actions, derived from the various discussions, should be arrived at prior to the end of the meetings.  This was felt to be particularly true with regard to the case study.

The last session of JRT meeting focused on planning future actions.  Some time was spent on the development of JRT chapters and how these might evolve.  A decision was taken to hold the next JRT Interim Meeting in the United Kingdom in March 2002.

A plenary panel discussion allowed participants of several forums to discuss initiatives in which they were personally involved.  The motivations surrounding their involvement, as well as the challenges faced when pursuing actions that “make a difference” were addressed.

Day 6 – July 19, 2001

A moving statement from Cornelio Sommaruga, President of the Swiss Foundation for Moral Re-Armament, on his involvement in the effort to ban landmines, highlighted the closing session of the CCBI. Following his comments, several forum participants delivered powerful statements of the impact that the conference had on their own thinking and actions that were likely to emerge as a result of their participation. 

Participants:

Russell Anderson (UK/USA); Caroline Chatterton (UK); Halya Dushco (Ukraine); Natalya Dushco (Ukraine); Menso Fermin (Netherlands); Nicholas Foster (UK); Steven Greisdorf (USA); Thea Joldersma (Netherlands/UK); Marina Kim (USA); Oksana Kuchman (Ukraine); Ela Kuresevic (Croatia); Marijana Longin (Croatia); Dubravko Miholic (Croatia); Tracey Perera (UK); Nicholas Scullion (UK)