Can Corporations Help Save The Planet, and other thoughts

An interesting topic raised on foot.ie brought this to the fore in my mind.  The question came up about the likelihood of Corporations – among the most powerful entities on the face of the planet - to resolve some of the problems on the planet, several of which they themselves had a hand in.  The two things that stood out in my mind, were (1)  Can the governments of the world do anything to encourage (with prejudice if need be) the Corporations to help tackle the problems facing the planet, and (2), will these Corporations manage to do it off their own bat?  I got to answering it, but before I knew it I had written a short essay on the matter, and I thought that it would bore many of those on the forum, but perhaps interest some of you who have been known to read this.

Corporations were created as a separate kind of entity in order to avoid certain legislative issues in the US towards the end of the 19th century (there are other examples predating this, but this was where it became global).  Their significant feature is that, unlike other businesses, their legal identity ois essentially the same as that of the common, or garden, human being.  The can’t cast a vote or get a driving license, but other than that, they have pretty much all the legal rights of the average person, and in doing so, they shield the shareholders from the legal, financial, and, inevitably, the ethical responsibilities for their behaviour. 

So to the questions.  Corporations generally have to be set up by a decree of government of some kind, but thereafter are fairly independent as long as they pay their taxes.  Until recently, in most cases across the world it was state corporations that was the norm, a good current example being the BBC – run in the broader interests of the state, yet fairly independent and rather large.  In this case, while they are inextricably linked, they are operating on their own basis, and they do as they will, much to the irritation of whoever is in charge, generally. 

International recognition as transnational and multinational corporations severs the state’s effective hold, and so they can find somewhere to operate which (a) has fewer constrictions, (b) lower taxation and is (c) able to provide some of its basic operational needs (raw materials, currency, market, or people!) cheaper than else where.  Like a person with dual citizenship, they can flee to where suits.  Thus as long as just one state is willing to say “Come in, exploit us”, the Corporation will be able to continue to screw the world up and the best governmental legislation will not stop it.  We can say nothing to these countries – this is what we did in the 1980s and 1990s, (certain restrictions removed, artificially lower taxation, proximity and improved access to European AND British markets, and a highly motivated and well educated people starved for work).

With regards to them doing it off their own accord, I am certain that many involved would like them to.  But remember that the corporation is in effect a person, a capricious self centred person.  And it doesn’t have any parents or guardians to tell it that it has been a very naughty legal entity, seeing as it can scarper off to Thailand of it doesn’t like what it is hearing.  And, you say, what of shareholders – they can right this mess.  Most people I know in Ireland have said that they didn’t vote FF in the last two elections.  Well, you wouldn’t say you were going to, would you.  However in the secrecy of the voting booth, you can do what you want and you cannot be held accountable.  That is how the average sharehold operates, if they do vote.  You don’t see people investing huge amounts in a company for it to go all “Let’s love the flowers and the trees”.  The likelihood is that if you did want that, you would invest in a company like that in the first place, not the money making juggernaught. 

But so often even those nice companies become too huge to be anything other than the juggernaught: the chief dictum of Capitalist Culture is “I exist, therefore I expand” – to stay at the same level, they have to expand, or they generally collapse.  Tricky.  Think Starbucks circa 1975 – pretty cool, kosher in the real sense of the word, and providing another outlet for social interaction with good coffee when it was not to be got.  Look at it in 2001, the year before the big WTA thing – almost Orwellian in it’s grasp of endless grinding.  More accessible to younger readers, they are the coffee serving Borg.  A new store every work day. parasytically leeching into cities and taking over the concept of a culture outside of work and home – they are “The Third Place”.  And is the coffee REALLY that great?

Another example of a former state corporation would be Aer Lingus, prior to them suffering the standard fate of state corporations in the world since Reagan and Thatcher – it was sold off.  Suddenly, despite all the foundational precepts, the key purpose – serving the people – was replaced by the standard corporational purpose – produce a profit yield to shareholders.  Doing both is not likely to happen, and so the good people of the mid west, many of whom who moved there for work on the basis of the fact that there was a reasonable international air transportation network, are left to consult Eurolines timetables, while Belfast gets a few new services.  And why?  Are Aer Lingus fearful about the emissions that the extra jaunt to Shannon impacts gravely on the environment?  Or do they want to help bring the people of divided Belfast together on the pilgrimage to Oxford Street and the Emirates Stadium?  I suspect that the truth is closer to the ommissions of the people of Limerick in thier failure to want to go to London every single weekend, and the grants available to provide services to the new North. 

 It is all about the cash.  There is no compunction on a Corporations to do something that does not make money, and therefore dividend - that is why their shares rise and fall, and that seems to matter to nervous millionaire shareholders – their investment just dropped a quarter percent, so sell, sell, sell!  If Dublin was to prove a slow selling destination, expect to see Aer Lingus concentrate on where does sell.  As their chief exec explained to the nation “I have to think about the shareholders”.  As a State Corporation, it would be the stakeholders, but no more of that.  Like most corporations now, it is private, and we don’t know who these mysterious shareholders are.  But they vote and let the organ of their vote, the corporation shield them from the fall out.  And the old line about only one vote doesn’t make a difference is used to further shield them.

The fact of the matter is that the corporations are faceless entities, and faceless things ultimately do not have souls.

Tags: aer lingus, bbc, Belfast, Capitalism, capitalist, Corporations, Dublin, Economics, foot.ie, ireland, Limerick, London, markets, Reagan, starbucks, state, Thatcher, US