One of the more interesting parts of my MBA so far has been the module on global perspectives in responsible business. Not because it introduced entirely new concepts, but because it forced a different way of thinking about organisations, leadership, and accountability.
Coming from a surgical and operational leadership background, I naturally tend to look at problems through a systems lens:
- identify the issue,
- understand the operational consequences,
- design a process,
- implement a solution.
What this module challenged me on was something slightly different.
Not just:
“What is the problem?”
But:
“Who benefits from the system staying exactly as it is?”
That shifts the conversation completely.
For my assignment, I focused on Glencore and the tension between ESG commitments and operational reality. On the surface, it is easy to frame these issues as isolated failures:
- corruption,
- environmental damage,
- labour exploitation,
- governance gaps.
But the deeper discussion was really about power, incentives, and institutional behaviour.
One of the more useful pieces of feedback I received challenged me to think less about critique and more about implementation. It is relatively easy to identify ethical failings in large organisations. Much harder is answering:
- who actually changes the system,
- what resistance emerges,
- what trade-offs are created,
- and whether organisations genuinely want reform if it threatens profitability or influence.
That felt particularly relevant beyond the assignment itself.
In healthcare leadership, governance is often discussed as though policies alone create accountability. In reality, culture usually determines whether governance has substance or becomes performative. Most organisations already have frameworks, committees, reporting structures, and strategic values. The real question is whether behaviour changes when pressure, money, hierarchy, or reputation are involved.
The module also pushed more reflexive thinking than I expected. Rather than purely analysing organisations externally, it encouraged consideration of how personal values, professional experiences, and leadership style influence the way problems are interpreted. That was probably the most unfamiliar part academically, but arguably the most useful.
What I took away overall was that responsible business is not really about polished ESG statements or theoretical models. It is about whether institutions are willing to confront uncomfortable incentives honestly — especially when doing so carries operational, financial, or political cost.
That applies just as much to healthcare systems as it does to multinational corporations.
And perhaps that is why the topic stayed with me more than I expected.