abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

9 May 2007

Author:
Ivar Simensen, Hugh Williamson, Financial Times

The problem with warm words

For the head of a global company with myriad operations around the world, the statement by Josef Ackermann at a recent press conference was certainly a bold one. "No business transaction in the world is worth risking Deutsche Bank's good reputation for," said the Deutsche Bank chief executive in February 2007...Yet in spite of [its corporate responsibility] procedures it is worth asking whether Deutsche Bank does in fact say no to potentially lucrative business deals because they could damage its reputation and harm the planet...Deutsche Bank was recently involved in two cases that go to the heart of this debate. Last year it withdrew from offering financial support to a controversial nuclear power project in Bulgaria. This year, following pressure from a non-governmental organisation, the bank admitted it had for 15 years managed the central bank funds of the government of Turkmenistan, a dictatorial regime accused of widespread abuses of democracy and human rights. By dissecting these cases it is possible to identify the ways a company actually behaves when handling potentially risky business projects.