According to Ian Bickerton (Financial Times, October 6 2006, “Guidelines on corporate responsibility simplified”, page 2) guidelines viewed by big businesses worldwide as a benchmark for corporate social responsibility need to be simplified in the hope that more companies will report on their environmental and social impacts.

More and more we see failures as the result of poorly established – or totally lacking – values in the corporate management. Or lack of the appropriate mechanisms to support the implementation of a company’s mission into ethical behaviors and attitudes.

Historically, this market was thought of being limited to a handful of multinationals, according to Ian Bickerton. But this might as well apply to all types (and sizes…) of organizations – research projects included.

We don’t want to have researchers that are myopic and shortsighted – or at least this is not what FP7 aims to achieve: the term cross-disciplinary appears several times in the official documents; in the past one would have called this inter- or multi-disciplinary. No big deal how one calls it – the important thing is that yes, it makes sense to include in your ambitious e-Gov project a sociologist or a political scientist; yes, it does make sense to include someone with first or second or third degree in history or art or psychology.

We don’t need incompetent consortia that lead to nowhere – success and research excellence cannot be achieved with materials of one sort: the postdoctoral researcher of a big research institute who is extremely competent in his area of acronyms, while on the other hand exhibiting an increased savagery for what one would call soft aspects, is a problem case for all of us: his (current as well as future) employees, the recipients of his research work and the environment in general.

It is not a matter of plurality or inclusion – it is also not a matter of supporting the employment of unemployed sociologists, psychologists or what else. It is about business – and about research too: they both require open horizons and people who have the guts to risk.

Let us not fail again – let us start the new Framework Programme with more wisdom and with an attitude that shows our want to learn from the (many) mistakes of our past. What has been achieved with all the money that was consumed and recycled in the economies of our organizations, institutions and companies? What has been achieved with all the money that was consumed and recycled in the economies of our countries? Why is sustainability so difficult to achieve? (For obvious reasons: sustainability is about economy not about money – and nowadays all people are concerned with money.

A society that gets lost in the delusionary labyrinths of Excel sheets – highly paid managers (sometimes even shamelessly highly paid…) imprisoned in Excel cells…

Can we achieve more for less? Can we teach Africa how to plan, design and implement low cost projects for health, government and democracy? E- is only a grammatical prefix – not an aim in itself.

I am tired of meeting arrogant people that don’t know to listen – they have only two modes: mode 1 is to hold speeches and make presentations in front of a silently listening and obedient public. Mode 2 is to stay silent when their bosses or other important people make presentations or hold speeches.

It is depressing that the same people could have been generators of innovation and excellence if they could simply leave for a while the white cells of their Excels and look to the core matters of their work and their lives.

Adamantios Koumpis

You may contact Adamantios at: akou@altec.gr