I thought I’d start off this blog posting thing with some general rambling thoughts, as I’m still organizing what I thought about “The Corporation”. I’d never actually seen the documentary before, though I’ve previously encountered some of the film’s examples of atrocious corporate actions in the news and in other media. I hold some generally anti-big business, left-wing/democratic socialist views, so perhaps it’s no surprise that I found it pretty persuasive.
There were a couple of threads in the documentary that I was particularly intrigued by. One example was the idea raised at 56:45 that when it comes to stockbrokers, “in devastation there is opportunity”. While that referenced the value of stocks following global tragedies, I thought it neatly recalled the earlier explanation in the film at around 22:10 by the representative from the Fraser Institute who suggested that the work of corporations can in fact “rescue” the global poor from starvation. My immediate reaction was essentially: what an abhorrent and opportunistic argument! Corporate self-interest (or I suppose, for corporations, the central financial interests of shareholders) means that the labour of the poor is seen as a means to an end. That is, the more desperate or immobile the workers, the less it might cost to use their labour, which comes off as a positive for a corporation seeking to minimize overhead and maximize profit. What kind of incentive for a business to give workers additional benefits or higher wages would be offered if it is poverty and human suffering that enables this source of labour? (I suppose one explanation of how this might actually provide a benefit to the community is given by the Pfizer CEO’s subway station tour later in the movie.) To uphold such work as a social good wilfully ignores the broader context of a corporation’s actions. I do think that the central principle of corporations revolving around profit and the financial interests of shareholders is a principle that seems to directly inform the corporation’s incapacity to do things that are sustainably good. This seems to be a view offered by the documentary as well.
Then again — maybe the idea that sustainability is a form of good that corporations are responsible for is an assumption I’m making about corporate social responsibility. I personally think that it should be central to the way business is done and, by extension, how we as a society conceptualize “productivity”, but I’m not sure that this is compatible with the inherently self-serving nature of corporations as an organizational structure/legal entity. To be self-interested isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I think, nor does it necessarily lead to poor behaviour, but when it is paired with the drive to produce financial profit for shareholders without looking to the interests of others, I think it is much more likely that a corporation will look to short-term solutions and cost-cutting measures at the expense of, as suggested in the film, environmental or human rights concerns.
Anyhow, I’m curious to see if anyone else saw the link between these parts of the film, and would be interested to hear any other (perhaps more eloquently stated) opinions.
