WE HAVE noted the statement of 'clarification' issued by Mr. Anthony Holness, the CEO of Hardware and Lumber, and the public apology by the group's chairman, Mr. Douglas Orane, for Mr. Holness' remarks on how the success against the narcotics trade in Jamaica had impacted on his company's performance.
Frankly, given the clear context of Mr. Holness' statement at H&L's annual general meeting this week, we are surprised that anyone would seek to make an issue of it, and that Mr. Holness and Mr. Orane would feel impelled to either clarify or apologise. For neither gentleman has anything for which to apologise.
As we understand it, a CEO, as is his responsibility, clearly placed before shareholders factors that contributed to the performance of the company he leads. For this Mr. Holness and his boss have been drawn into something of a discourse on the moral responsibility of a retail business in conducting its operation and how far it should go in knowing, or even screening, its customers.
The context of Mr. Holness' statement is important. He was, it is to be recalled, explaining the group's 62 per cent decline in profit last year, the high levels of inventory maintained in 2005 and its outlook for 2006 in continued difficult circumstances.
Mr. Holness argued that the success of the police against narcotics traders, especially in western Jamaica, impacted on business. Which, of course, makes sense. When drug money is 'running' it flows through communities, whose members spend it on all kinds of things, from upgrading their homes, to health care and sending their children to school. Mr. Holness did not have to declare that the cocaine bosses build large homes or are engaged in other major developments. We knew this intuitively and have, in fact, been told by the police and others in authority.
It is not surprising, therefore, that when the flow of cash is stanched there is an effect on business, as Mr. Holness indicated was the case in Montego Bay after Operation Kingfish began to have success against the narcotics bosses. Such success, of course, is to be applauded; and if the accompanying economic squeeze is a price to be paid, then so be it.
What is particularly surprising is that a legitimate developer would, as appears to have been the case, interpret Mr. Holness' statement to be casting aspersions on his operation. The context is too obvious.
If we are to criticise Mr. Orane it is for the potential moral hazard to which he has opened himself and his company for being drawn into an apology because of the ill-founded comments of a few. H&L, as does any company, assumes the legitimacy of its customers. None ought to be required to test this legitimacy by, say, asking customers for tax compliance certificates of endorsement of their non-criminal status signed by notaries public. Doing business this way would be too cumbersome and bureaucratic and a transference of law enforcement responsibilities to firms. That is not on.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
