corporation.doc

7/27/2019 corporation.doc

1/8

The Corporation:

The Pathological Pursuit of Profit & Power

Directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott; Written by Joel Bakan; Producedby Big Picture Media Corp., 2004)

"This vivid and often mesmerizing film lifts the veil from one of the

most important and least understood features of modern age: the

extraordinary powers that have been bestowed on virtually

unaccountable private tyrannies, required by law to act in ways that

severely undermine democracy and the most elementary human rights,

and that pose a serious threat even to survival." -- Noam Chomsky,

Institute Professor, MIT

The Corporation is a thought-provoking documentary that presents a

controversial and well-informed discussion of the positive and negative influence

of corporations in todays society. The film is entertaining, irrespective of the

viewers position on the issues it presents and it has received dozens of awards

in movie festivals around the world since its release in 2004.

Inspired by Joel Bakans eponymous book, the films premise is that, since the

corporation has been given the rights of a legal person, we can evaluate what

type of person it is. The filmmakers diagnosis? The corporation is a psychopath.

They support their arguments with case studies, vignettes, and interviews

some of which are with individualswho have been adversely affected

by the actions of large corporations.

The filmmakers present the

corporation as a paradox: an

institution that creates great wealth

but causes enormous and often

hidden harms. As these harms

become increasingly apparent to

governments and civil societies

there is greater pressure onbusinesses to respond; the rise of

the concept of corporate social

responsibility attests to this

development.

The Corporation: Individual or Institution?

One of the most compelling aspects of the film is this question: Is the firm an

individual or an institution? The historical development of the corporation

as a legal entity, neatly summarized in The Corporation, reveals that the answer

is not clear-cut. Although a corporation has the legal status of a person, it is notexpected to meet the commensurate responsibilities of an individual. A


2/8

corporation cannot, for example, be imprisoned for criminal activities. Moreover,

as Bakan observed in his book, the law requires corporations to prioritize the

interests of their companies and shareholders above all others and

forbids them from being socially responsibleat least genuinely so.

Are corporations responsible for their impacts on non-shareholder stakeholders?

The film offerscontrasting opinions.

Noam Chomsky said that: corporations are special kinds of

persons, who have no moral conscience. They are

designed by law to be concerned only for their

stockholders.

As Chomsky puts it: The individuals participating in [corporations] may

be the nicest guys you can imagine, but in their institutional role they

are monsters because the institution is monstrous.

Former Royal/Dutch Shell Chair, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, reminds viewers of the

economic responsibilities and benefits of the corporate entity , There is no

organization on this planet that can neglect its

economic foundation, even someone living under a

banyan tree .

Perhaps one of the great insights

The Corporation yields is that true

corporate social responsibility isachieved only through individuals

actions. Institutions are comprised

of individuals and it is the character

of these individuals that defines the

institution. Whereas corporate

social responsibility is assigned to

the institution, it must be directly

owned by the individuals within

corporations, lest it become diffused

in the abstract entity that is thecorporation.

THE PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES

To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed,

using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard

diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of

the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested,

inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards

to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities

of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe ofcorporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals


3/8

and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing

diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism

fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."

MINDSET

But what is the ethical mindset of corporate players? Should the institution or

the individuals within it be held responsible? The people who work for

corporations may be good people, upstanding citizens in their communities, but

none of that matters when they enter the corporation's world. As Sam Gibara,

Former CEO and Chairman of Goodyear Tire, explains, "If you really had a free

hand, if you really did what you wanted to do that suited your personal thoughts

and your personal priorities, you'd act differently."

Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, the world's largest commercial carpet

manufacturer, had an environmental epiphany and re-organized his $1.4 billion

company on sustainable principles. His

company may be a beacon of corporate

hope, but is it an exception to the rule?

Corporations are

people, too; specifically,

they're psychopaths

MONSTROUS OBLIGATIONS

A case in point: Sir Mark Moody-Stuart recounts an exchange between himself

(at the time Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell), his wife, and a motley crew of Earth

First activists who arrived on the doorstep of their country home. The protesters

chanted and stretched a banner over their roof that read, "MURDERERS." The

response of the surprised couple was not to call the police, but to engage their

uninvited guests in a civil dialogue, share concerns about human rights and the

environment and eventually serve them tea on their front lawn. Yet, as the

Moody-Stuarts apologize for not being able to provide soy milk for their vegancritics' tea, Shell Nigeria is flaring unrivaled amounts of gas, making it one of the

world's single worst sources of pollution. And all the professed concerns about

the environment do not spare Ken Saro Wiwa and eight other activists from

being hanged for opposing Shell's environmental practices in the Niger Delta.

The Corporation exists to create wealth, and even world disasters can be profit

centers. Carlton Brown, a commodities trader, recounts with unabashed honesty

the mindset of gold traders while the twin towers crushed their occupants. The

first thing that came to their minds, he tells us, was: "How much is gold up?"

Who Owns Knowledge And Life?


4/8

The Corporation likewise forces viewers to ponder key philosophical questions

about the role of science and entrepreneurship and who should own knowledge

and life. Jeremy Rifkin, President of the Foundation on Economic Trends,

introduces the complexities of intellectual property by outlining the history of

patenting knowledge and life forms. Here, the film pushes our sensibilities of

entrepreneurship and patenting. Patenting is intended to encourage innovation

by ensuring that the innovator profits from the discoveries. But indiscriminant

patenting can lead to bio-piracy a

recently-coined term for the activities of

corporations, universities and

governments that patent the medicinal or

therapeutic properties of plants or

animals used in traditional and indigenous

medicines. The film also discusses the

ethics of genetically-modified foods,

which both dramatically increase foodproduction and change farming practices.

For example, terminator technology in

rice prevents farmers from saving and re-sowing seeds because the seeds have

been genetically modified to produce only one crop. Perhaps most disturbing,

the film raises the specter of corporations owning the entire human genetic

code, as well as that of all other species on the planet.

Advertising and Marketing

The filmmakers raise a number of ethical questions about advertising and

marketing. For example, the Nag Factor sheds light on how corporations

advertise to teenagers and children and help them nag for their products more

effectively. Quite simply, corporations, through television, and other media

sources, influence the behavior of children, and in turn, their parents, through

the antisocial behavior of nagging. The segment includes a revealing interview

with Lucy Hughes, a market researcher who helps corporations manipulate

consumers into wanting and buying your products or, as Chomsky describes it,

helps corporations turn people into completely mindless consumers of goods

that they do not want. Jonathan Ressler, CEO of Big Fat Inc., also explains

stealth marketing, a relatively new marketing strategy that uses paid actors to

endorse products in apparently casual conversations and interactions in public

places. Ressler is a provocative interviewee, arguing that if stealth marketing is

showing you something that makes your life better in some way, then who

caresjust say thanks!


5/8

The film opens viewers eyes to the pervasiveness of corporate advertising. The

visceral responses that stealth marketing may evoke reflect the discomfort

many people feel when advertising spills into all aspects of their daily lives. The

film asks us to consider the potential risk that stealth marketing poses by

fraying the social fabric of our community. What happens when we can no

longer discriminate between the messages from which the messenger profits

and those in which the messenger

merely offers an opinion not designed

to make a sale?

For managers, the film highlights the

importance of honesty in customer

relationships and the increasing

difficulty of building that trust.

The Corporation as Government

The Corporation illustrates

convincingly how the roles of

corporations and government can overlap by critically examining privatization

an issue that is always divisive. Interviews with intellectuals, executives and

labor leaders introduce viewers to the complex economics and ethics of public

goods and services. For example,

Elaine Bernard, Executive Director of Harvard Universitys Trade Union Program,

broadens the definition of wealth from privately-owned goods and resources to

include public wealth like clean water and a safe environment. Philosopher MarkKingwell discusses how the goals of organizations that offer public services

necessarily differ

from those of private

corporations.

Michael Walker,

erstwhile Executive

Director of the

Fraser Institute, a

market solutions

think-tank, arguesthat every cubic

foot of air, water,

. of the planet

should be privately

owned. Privatization,

he argues, can

improve

responsibility and accountability; it is not such a loony idea; its in fact the

solution to [many social] problems.

The film also depicts the housing and security programs that Pfizer operates in

the community around its Brooklyn facility. With clips of a run-down


6/8

neighborhood and interviews with Pfizer employees, the case study

demonstrates how corporations often have to provide social services because

governments fail to do so.

However, Pfizers experience shows that there are risks for firms that get

involved in servicestraditionally provided by

government. Corporations can

easily overextend their

activities in the social arena,

and it is often difficult to

reconcile social needs with

shareholder interests.

Moreover, problems emerge

when a corporation tries to

scale back its commitment toessential social programs.

Privatization is a complex,

controversial and political

issue. The privatization debate also underscores how the welfare of the

corporation is intrinsically tied to the welfare of society over the long run. The

fatal consequences of a failed Bolivian privatization program demonstrate how

society can take away a corporations social license to operate and highlight for

managers the importance of responding to multi-stakeholder concerns.

THE PRICE OF WHISTLEBLOWING

It turns out that standing for the public good is an expensive proposition. Ask

Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, two investigative reporters fired by Fox News after

they refused to water down a story on rBGH, a controversial synthetic hormone

widely used in the United States (but banned in Europe and Canada) to rev up

cows' metabolism and boost their milk production. Because of the increased

production, the cows suffer from mastitis, a painful infection of the udders.

Antibiotics must then be injected, which find their way into the milk, and

ultimately reduce people's resistance to disease.

Fox demanded that they rewrite the story, and ultimately fired Akre and Wilson.Akre and Wilson subsequently sued Fox under Florida's whistle-blower statute.


7/8

They proved to a jury that the version of the story Fox would have had them put

on the air was false, distorted or slanted. Akre was awarded $425,000. Then Fox

appealed, the verdict was overturned on a technicality, and Akre lost her award.

[For an update on the case see Disc 2 where we learn that at one point, Jane and

Steve became liable for Fox's $1.8 million court costs, later to be reduced to

$200,000.]

DEMOCRACY LTD.

Democracy is a value that the corporation just doesn't understand. In fact,

corporations have often tried to undo democracy if it is an obstacle to their

single-minded drive for profit. From a 1934 business-backed plot to install a

military dictator in the White House (undone by the integrity of one U.S. Marine

Corps General, Smedley Darlington Butler) to present-day law-drafting,

corporations have bought military might, political muscle and public opinion.

And corporations do not hesitate to take advantage of democracy's absence

either. One of the most shocking stories of the twentieth century is Edwin

Black's recounting IBM's strategic alliance with Nazi Germany-one that began in

1933 in the first weeks that Hitler came to power and continued well into World

War II.

SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM

The Corporation is a prophetic critique of a beast that has grown too powerful

and too dangerous to ignore any longer. People need to change the situation

through reflection, rage, rebellion. The corporations think they have done their

job by numbing peoples mind; dumbing them down. Only people can

show them how wrong they are. To be free from this greed of capitalism

common man has to take the charge knowing their democratic rights.

Declare Independence from corporate rule

CONCLUSION

The Corporation" is a complete overview over the way businesses have changed

our lives is probably more than any feature-length film can deliver, but Achbar,

Abbott, and Bakan try none

the less. From pollution,

globalization, sweatshops, the

punishment of whistle-

blowers, the destructive

impact on the biosphere, the

privatization of our most

precious resources, branding

and dishonest PR, the

patenting of life forms, media

consolidation, certain


8/8

corporations' fascist past, exploitive marketing to children, and much much

more, the film shows just how pervasive and damaging the consequences of

corporatism have been.

This is something that is fairly new to us as a society. For hundreds of years it's

been individuals in charge, and now it's corporations in charge. We don't evenreally know who these corporations are, other than the fact that they are

psychopathic. It is the psychopathology of the business world that is now

running our world. So, if you've ever wondered why everything around you

seems so incredibly insane, the answer is because an insane individual is

running it all -- an individual known as a corporation -- and it is a frightening

collection of corporations that now rule our society. Only people can stop this by

uniting against such vandalism.

corporation.doc

Documents