Kush Kumar Joshi is currently serving his third consecutive term as the President of the National Business Initiative (NBI), an organisation dedicated to promoting ethical and responsible business practices in Nepal. Under his leadership, the NBI has been instrumental in peacebuilding efforts, election funding reforms, disaster risk reduction and management, and the advancement of modern Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Founded on the successful South African model of private sector engagement in peace processes, NBI continues to be a pivotal force. A highly respected figure in the business community, Joshi previously served as the President of the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI), the nation’s premier private sector umbrella body, from 2008 to 2011.
Joshi is the Chairman and Managing Director of Nepal Ekarat Engineering Co. (NEEK), an ISO-certified company recognised for its quality management and occupational health and safety standards, adhering to both IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) and NS (Nepal Standard) specifications. A staunch advocate for a level playing field and a conducive business environment, Joshi recently sat down with the HRM Nepal to share critical insights on election funding reform and its profound impact on governance, business ethics, and corruption control. Excerpts of the interview follow.
Q: As the current President of the National Business Initiative, how would you assess the status of the business community through the lens of business ethics?
A: Since the inception of the National Business Initiative (NBI), we have advocated for responsible business practices; this is not merely a slogan, but our core mandate. Every enterprise should maintain a code of conduct rooted in ethical practices, which requires strict adherence to state laws, rules, and regulations. Businesses must comply with the Company Act, labour laws, and environmental statutes, among others. A business is only truly ‘ethical’ if it respects these legal frameworks alongside the norms and values of society, ensuring decent workplaces free from harassment and exploitations. While achieving this is challenging given the current operational landscape in Nepal, I am confident we can improve. For instance, some businesses view environmental safeguards and other standards strictly as burdensome compliance costs.
Moreover, while one may fully adhere to these standards, others might exploit grey areas in enforcement. It is clear that while many businesspeople are philosophically aligned with ethical practices, a compromising mentality often prevents them from following through. When individuals deviate from ethics to bend rules, corruption begins to thrive. Even those attempting to protect the environment may struggle with unforeseen ecological challenges. Ultimately, the high frequency and intensity of environmental damages mean we will pay a steep price if we ignore safeguards. This is why NBI has prioritised Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and emergency preparedness – publishing the ‘Guide Book on Emergency Preparedness’ and leading the private sector’s post-disaster response efforts, from post-earthquake recovery to COVID-19 response – to build a resilient private sector. During COVID-19, NBI members contributed CSR funds to instal oxygen generation plants at national and regional hospitals, while our ‘Fundamental Workplace Preparedness and Operating Guidebook’ helped businesses navigate the pandemic. Therefore, ethical business is essential for a prosperous, equitable society and nation.
Q: It is a significant irony that while the NBI continues to advocate for ethical and responsible business practices, cronyism appears to be flourishing across the country. How do you address this contradiction?
A: Society’s current mindset values wealth regardless of how it is acquired, failing to distinguish between ethical and unethical means of accumulation. As individuals become super-rich, they begin to exert undue influence over political leaders, bureaucrats, and society at large. Consequently, those profiting from legal loopholes or political protection build vast empires, often pressuring other businesspeople to join their crony networks. Without direct access to political and bureaucratic leadership, it has become increasingly difficult for legitimate businesspersons to receive fair services or a level playing field. This forces them to seek out power brokers who operate under political patronage.
Because the bureaucracy is highly politicised, officials also exploit their relationships with tycoons to secure lucrative positions or favourable transfers. These tycoons, in turn, provide bribes or fund political parties to influence appointments even after a bureaucrat’s retirement. Politicians then utilise these illicitly collected resources to buy or influence votes during elections. This cycle has created a powerful collusion that undermines governance, transparency, and accountability. Ending this systemic rot requires a strong intervention led by determined political leadership. Until clear, transparent rules of the game are established, promoting responsible business practices in the country will remain an uphill battle.
Q: To what extent do you agree with the assertion that the business community itself is responsible for the prevalence of corruption?
A: We must distinguish between ‘setting’ and corruption. Corruption involves authorities using coercive power, such as delays or threats, to extract undue benefits by compelling service seekers, including businesspeople. ‘Setting’, conversely, refers to the proactive manoeuvres businesspeople employ to secure government services. While both are criminal acts, perpetrators often escape penalties through collusion with state authorities. These practices systematically disadvantage small businesses and those lacking access to power. Regarding donations, they must always be voluntary and made without the exertion of pressure, force, or authority.
Q: In what ways has the NBI been highlighting these issues to mobilise public pressure against such settings and systemic corruption?
A: We have consistently used our national platforms to bring these uncomfortable truths to light. We have consistently mobilised public opinion through both high-level dialogue and grassroots campaigns. On one hand, we have institutionalised the discourse through our Responsible Business Summits. For instance, our Responsible Business Summits have featured dedicated sessions on ‘Political Financing and Anti-Corruption’ and ‘Strengthening Corporate Governance’ to openly debate these challenges. We even organised a National Conference with the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) to clearly define the private sector’s role in checking corruption. On the other, we have led direct advocacy campaigns like ‘Gari Khana Deu’ and nationwide drives against forced donations and extortion to demand a secure operating environment. We also observe the national and local level elections, starting with 2013 Constituent Assembly Election, to ensure electoral integrity. By uniting over 100 companies under the National Declaration of Business Ethics, we have created a collective voice against these systemic issues. Despite these efforts to mobilise public pressure, as long as political patronage remains rooted within our institutions, rampant setting and corruption will prevail, gradually driving the country toward instability and unrest due to extreme inequality.
Q: Throughout your FNCCI presidency, you consistently fought against unethical practices like syndicates and strikes while advocating for responsible business. How does it feel personally to be isolated by cronies who oppose such advocacy?
A: Yes, they do. The major reason behind our underdevelopment is undoubtedly corruption. Even the public perception of the business community remains negative. They are often treated as corrupt individuals and blamed for relying on political patronage to operate. However, we should not generalise or place everyone in the same category. When we look at political figures, we often assume they collect funds by any means necessary to contest elections and, upon returning to power, accumulate even more resources. This trend may persist for years if it is not reined in.
To move the state toward providing equal facilities to all citizens and making the system transparent, corruption must be controlled. We are fighting for systemic transparency and a facilitative role for the state. Once the system is transparent, it will be more predictable for businesses to operate based on compliance, freeing them from the troubles of non-compliance and rent-seeking.
For example, electricity, water, health, and education are fundamental rights. Yet, it is often challenging to access these services easily. When electricity was finally supplied 24/7, ending rolling blackouts, people applauded the authorities as if it were a miracle. In reality, it was their right, and they were paying for it. The government’s basic requirement is to provide necessary services and fulfil its responsibilities to us. Until we move past our current state of mind, these basic duties will continue to be treated as matters of political gimmicks and publicity.
If we do not act to control corruption, it escalates into money laundering, involving drugs, arms, and the financing of criminal activities or terrorism. This would be counterproductive for the nation’s image, especially as Nepal has been flagged in the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) review. In this view, we emphasize responsible and ethical business practices as the foundation for a value-based society and a prosperous nation.
Q: Given the NBI’s commitment to anti-corruption and responsible business, why haven’t you established a broader network with relevant institutions and civil society organisations to foster a robust ecosystem and a unified public voice against corruption?
A: Despite our efforts, a powerful nexus within the system and individuals protected by political patronage are strongly resisting change, making it difficult to strictly abide by responsible business practices. For example, if one outlet responsibly collects Value Added Tax (VAT) from consumers while a second one does not, consumers will naturally choose the second option. Unless citizens are convinced that the VAT collected by the state is being spent to enhance public facilities, it remains nearly impossible for the ethical vendor to compete with the one avoiding taxes.
It is deeply rooted in the public consciousness that VAT and other taxes collected by the government are misused by those in power or lost to corruption. It is the state’s responsibility to prove to the people that tax revenue is utilised properly. This mindset cannot be changed overnight without genuine transparency and accountability among those who manage the public purse.
The recent Gen Z uprising is a direct result of such collusion and the coercive use of power. It is an expression of mass despair. People are profoundly dissatisfied with malgovernance, nepotism, corruption, the lack of public facilities, and the constant hassles associated with public service delivery.
Q: In your opinion, what role should the business community play in improving the country’s governance?
A: Our proposal to the business community is one of introspection and self-improvement. The NBI has explicitly called for the adoption of responsible business practices, including everyone from large industries to MSMEs, and urged members to blow the whistle on any hassles or undue demands from public servants or political leaders encountered while operating fairly. We must fundamentally change our behaviour and operational models. However, building consensus within the business community remains difficult. For instance, if a tax official offers a way to minimise taxes in exchange for a bribe, and one taxpayer refuses while another accepts, the ethical individual is often cornered by the authorities. Meanwhile, the person who accepts and fosters these illicit relationships grows exponentially.
However, such nexus and collusion will not be sustainable in the long term due to international compliance standards governed by global treaties. As Nepal prepares to graduate to the league of developing nations in 2026, the business community must improve its methods of operation. Without ethical and responsible business practices, our export potential will be severely limited, as the international community will not entertain products if export compliances are not properly adhered to.
Q: Do you believe the Gen Z uprising has effectively ignited a movement against corruption and collusion, or is it unlikely to produce the desired results in the long-term battle against systemic malpractice?
A: At this moment, I cannot say that politics is not my business. Politics is everyone’s business in this country. We are part and parcel of politics because politics is what governs us. The voice of youth clearly explains how malgovernance is killing their dreams, leaving them unable to find a future within their own nation. The uprising was an effort to dismantle the ecology of nexuses, settings, collusion, and corruption. In this view, good governance must be ensured, not only to create opportunities for the youth but also to streamline the system and its institutions through transparency and accountability.
Q: What message does the Gen Z uprising send to the business community?
A: Obviously, the message is clear. The business community is equally responsible for this malgovernance, and they must correct themselves by understanding the aspirations of the people and society. Similarly, bureaucrats and political leadership should correct their paths and commit to delivering better services, minimising hassles, and controlling corruption while honouring the dreams of the youth. If we remain rigid and fail to pursue course correction, we risk triggering further public despair.
Rigorous reforms of laws, processes, and administration must be initiated, and the results in service delivery must become visibly apparent. The NBI has been consistently fighting for transparency, the control of corruption, and a ‘no donation’ drive during elections. These agendas of Gen Z are very similar to what we have been advocating for a long time. We hope that the message of the Gen Z uprising remains loud and long-lasting, and that everyone respects the voices of these young people who have become frustrated with bad governance.
Q: With a general election approaching and the business community traditionally funding political parties, you have long advocated for transparent donations that appear visibly in corporate audit reports. Do you believe political parties are truly prepared to accept funding with such a high level of transparency?
A: The NBI has been onboarded as an election observer by the Election Commission. Since our inception, we have lobbied for organised and transparent election funding, having studied successful models in neighbouring countries like India, Bangladesh, and Bhutan. We have been vocal in our demand that all donations be made via bank cheques to ensure accountability. Political parties must maintain transparent audit reports so that their expenditures can be easily tracked.
The NBI believes that the root of all corruption, whether in parliamentary or organisational contests, lies in the election process itself. Excessive election spending prevents the right person from reaching the right place. When candidates spend heavily, those funds are typically sponsored by someone, and compromises begin the moment they win. For example, if a party asks for a donation within my capacity, I may provide it to support their work for the state. However, when demands exceed my capacity tenfold, I cannot manage it, and a transactional deal is often struck with someone else to bridge the gap. When these deals occur, corruption takes root. Unless this practice of excessive donation-seeking is halted, controlling corruption will remain a herculean task.
While the NBI maintains a clear stance against giving such donations, individual businesspersons may not always adhere to this. As a community, we ask political parties to include specific economic development agendas in their manifestos and offer our support only if those plans are reliable and focused on the business environment. However, donations must remain transparent and within reasonable limits.
Elections should not be prohibitively costly. The Election Commission must effectively monitor and enforce expenditure ceilings, outrightly suspending any candidate who exceeds them. The commission should also focus on voter education. Most importantly, the state should provide funds to political parties based on set criteria. This would streamline transparency in party balance sheets and allow democratic freedom for candidates to be chosen based on conscience rather than cash.
If political parties stop influencing voters with money, food, beverages, and false promises, such as free services or inflated social security allowances, election costs would drop to minimal levels covering only campaigns and transportation. Voters must also be aware of their role in choosing the right candidates. Ultimately, implementing the ‘right to reject’ and ‘right to recall’ is crucial to ensuring a fair level playing field for everyone in the race.
Q: In what ways are you collaborating with anti-corruption bodies like the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority and the National Vigilance Centre, as well as various international organisations, to strengthen your impact?
A: We have been working in collaboration with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to ensure human rights in business, alongside other anti-corruption organisations such as Transparency International (TI). Most of our programmes are focused on ethical business. We organise the Responsible Business Summit every two years, where we bring in experts to deliver keynotes on best practices in ethical business operations.
We have been making a tireless effort, yet we cannot push this forward as a national agenda by standing alone. Unless the public is aware, state authorities are held accountable, and processes and institutions become transparent, it remains difficult to establish this as a national priority.
Instead of the state authorities and the NBI pointing fingers at one another, we must collaborate and trigger a period of introspection within both the government and the business communities. This is not a ‘chicken and egg’ game between the government and the private sector. Both parties must be equally responsible and accountable.
Q: While advocating for responsible business practices, have you ever found the government expressing a genuine interest in collaborating on this initiative?
A: Unfortunately, that has not happened yet. I believe collaboration with the NBI is currently not a priority for the government. I am unaware of the government working in these specific domains with other private sector umbrella bodies. As the NBI is proactive regarding anti-corruption, good governance, and promoting responsible business practices, I believe the government should be open to collaborating with us.
The NBI has also issued a code of conduct that our members must adhere to. If they violate it, we suspend them. However, the prevailing culture in the country has created significant difficulties in enforcing such codes. Though we are not discouraged, the promotion of ethical and responsible business practices is a values-based campaign. It may take time, but we are confident that we can bring about change.
In this age of global competition, you simply cannot do business effectively unless governance is fixed. The United Nations has introduced Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards. If environmental sustainability is neglected, many businesses will disappear. For example, environmental degradation and pollution adversely hit Nepal’s tourism industry because disasters occur more frequently, and the Himalayas are melting rapidly due to climate change.
Q: The business community often suggests that industrial and infrastructure development are mutually exclusive with environmental conservation. Do you agree with this perspective?
A: I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. Businesses can adopt both adaptation and mitigation measures for environmental conservation. For example, if industries minimise energy consumption by using power-efficient technologies, we will not need to generate as much energy by extracting natural resources, and fossil fuel consumption can be lowered. There is also the carbon credit fund, which operates on the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Since we already have low carbon emissions, by further reducing them and becoming more energy efficient, we can access carbon credit funds while becoming more competitive by lowering production costs through reduced energy spending.
As a businessperson, you should not view occupational health and safety, environmental safeguards, cleanliness, and sanitation as extra costs or burdens. For instance, if an international firm places an order with my industry, they want to be confident not only in our production capacity but also in our business continuity plans, backup strategies for strikes or supply obstructions, human rights practices regarding occupational safety, and the implementation of environmental safeguards.
European countries are highly conscious of these factors. Furthermore, when I visited China, I observed that most companies there have already aligned themselves with ESG standards.
Q: Do you believe our business communities are sufficiently aware of these international market rules and compliances, and are they viewing them as potential opportunities or merely as additional burdens?
A: Those exporting goods and services to foreign countries are well aware of these requirements. However, most businesses in the country are currently struggling for survival due to protests, the global economic slowdown, and a deteriorating investment climate. Importers generally feel confident only when they possess crucial certifications, such as health and safety management systems, environmental management systems, and general quality control systems. International market buyers will increasingly inspect and govern our operations through ISO certifications, a pressure that will intensify as Nepal graduates to the league of developing countries.
Q: What are your major priorities at the NBI for the remaining period of your tenure?
A: Our priority is to advocate for timely elections conducted in a fair manner. They should be held on fearless ground, and there must be no donation drives. Unless the state remains unbiased while dealing with the business community, a nation can never truly achieve prosperity. There is also a sense of cynicism surrounding the word ‘profit’, yet a business cannot sustain itself without it. Rational profit is necessary for reinvestment, generating employment, paying taxes, and contributing to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Operating a business without profit is like an employee working without a salary. It is simply not possible.
Q: Although it is traditionally assumed that the private sector is purely profit-oriented while the government upholds public values, the NBI is actively championing ethical business and anti-corruption while the government often appears driven by narrow interests. How do you reconcile this paradox where the roles seem to have reversed?
A: What amazes me is that bureaucrats and civil servants are in their positions for the purpose of service delivery. It is their duty to provide services to seekers by abiding by prevailing laws, without any ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’. However, they have been seeking undue benefits and rents from the business community in exchange for those services.
If business communities are taking risks, injecting capital, investing their time and skills, generating employment, and contributing to production, they should be treated well and given special care by the government. Instead, bureaucrats often seek more money and lavish lifestyles through rent-seeking without taking any personal risks. Political parties may be providing patronage to these bureaucrats to collect illicit funds, which are then spent during elections to influence voters.
It is true that civil servants’ salaries need to be rationalised, but corruption must be controlled. If civil servants wish to make more money, they should quit their government jobs and embrace entrepreneurship.
Q: What are your personal thoughts regarding retiring from the business sector to enter politics?
A: I have no interest in joining politics. I do not believe that everyone should enter politics. I must be clear about how I can best contribute to the nation as a businessperson. If I were to stop, a vacuum would remain in the sector where I am currently making an impact. If you do your job honestly within your own field, that in itself is a significant contribution. My interest and expertise lie in business, and I may not be a fit for politics, just as entrepreneurship is not everyone’s cup of tea.
I am in the transformer business, importing raw materials and technology from abroad. From the very beginning, I focused on enhancing our brand, quality, and technology. I had a dream to sell my products globally, even if they were produced here. It has been nearly 35 years for NEEK transformers, and it has established itself as a reputed brand worldwide. We have been exporting to Bhutan, where nearly 90% of the transformers are NEEK brand, and we are now opening a factory there to transfer our technical know-how.
I have been showcasing our products in Dubai and exporting to Africa. It is true that we can enhance brand recognition, quality, and technology through our expertise, and we can grow such industries within Nepal. The government should focus on protecting and promoting domestic industries by consuming local products and supporting their export efforts. It is unfortunate that this is not currently happening in the country.
