The Corporation
This article reveals systemic corruption and prioritization of profit over people in modern businesses, paralleling how governments, seen as corporate entities, exploit and neglect their citizens.
"The Corporation" is a documentary where a significant portion of content addresses corporate malfeasance. It challenges the metaphor of "bad apples" to describe unethical behavior within corporations, arguing that the issue is not just a few individuals but a systemic problem ingrained in the corporate structure itself. The film critically examines this pervasive issue, demonstrating how the prioritization of profit over social responsibility leads to widespread harm and ethical breaches.
The film posits that the fundamental design and mandate of corporations inherently drive them to prioritize profit maximization over social responsibility. This priority is embedded in the legal and operational frameworks of corporations, which are structured to serve the interests of shareholders above all else. This shareholder primacy model obligates corporate managers to focus on increasing shareholder value, often leading to decisions that can be detrimental to employees, communities, and the environment.
Several case studies and real-world examples are presented to illustrate how this profit-driven mandate results in widespread harm. The documentary highlights notorious corporate scandals, such as those involving Enron, Worldcom, and Arthur Andersen, to demonstrate that these incidents are not isolated but rather symptomatic of a deeper, systemic problem. The film suggests that these corporations, driven by the imperative to deliver ever-increasing profits, engaged in fraudulent and unethical practices that ultimately led to catastrophic consequences for their stakeholders and society at large.
Moreover, "The Corporation" explores the psychological profile of the corporation as an institution. By treating the corporation as a "person" under the law, with rights akin to those of an individual, the film examines what kind of person a corporation would be. This analysis reveals that the corporation, as structured by its legal mandate, exhibits traits of a psychopathic personality. This characterization is based on the corporation's lack of empathy, disregard for the well-being of others, and single-minded pursuit of self-interest (profit), irrespective of the harm caused.
The documentary also delves into the historical and legal evolution of corporate personhood, explaining how corporations came to be granted the same rights as individuals through judicial interpretations of the 14th Amendment. Originally intended to protect the rights of freed slaves, the 14th Amendment was co-opted by corporate lawyers to argue for the recognition of corporations as legal "persons." This legal status has provided corporations with significant protections and advantages, allowing them to wield immense power while often escaping accountability for their actions.
Furthermore, "The Corporation" examines the cultural and economic factors that have contributed to the rise of corporate power. It discusses how corporations have leveraged their resources to influence political systems, regulatory frameworks, and public opinion, often through lobbying, public relations campaigns, and the revolving door between corporate and government positions. This influence has enabled corporations to shape policies and regulations in ways that further entrench their power and profitability, frequently at the expense of public welfare and democratic governance.
Through interviews with a diverse range of stakeholders, including CEOs, economists, academics, and activists, the film presents a multifaceted critique of the modern corporation. It highlights the voices of whistleblowers and insiders who reveal the inner workings and ethical compromises of corporate life, as well as the perspectives of critics who advocate for alternative models of business and governance that prioritize sustainability, equity, and the common good.
"The Corporation" argues that the pervasive and often destructive influence of corporations is not simply the result of a few unethical individuals but a consequence of the systemic and structural imperatives that drive corporate behaviour. The film calls for a re-evaluation of the role and purpose of corporations in society, urging for reforms that align corporate practices with broader social and environmental goals. It encourages viewers to recognize their power as citizens and consumers to demand accountability and advocate for a more just and sustainable economic system.
"The Corporation," released in 2003, remains highly relevant in today's world, despite the passage of 21 years since its debut. Its exploration of the nature, evolution, and impact of modern business corporations continues to resonate as these entities have grown even more powerful and pervasive in global society. The issues highlighted in the film—corporate malfeasance, environmental degradation, social inequality, and the influence of corporations on politics and public policy—are still pressing concerns. Here's an analysis of the continued relevance of "The Corporation":
Since the release of the documentary, the power and influence of corporations have only expanded. Globalization and technological advancements have enabled corporations to operate on an unprecedented scale, often transcending national boundaries and regulatory frameworks. The rise of tech giants like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple has introduced new dimensions to corporate dominance, raising fresh concerns about data privacy, market monopolies, and the erosion of democratic processes.
The documentary's critique of corporations' environmental and social impact remains pertinent as the world grapples with climate change, resource depletion, and social inequality. Corporations continue to play a significant role in these issues, both as contributors to the problems and as potential agents of change. The need for sustainable business practices and corporate accountability is more urgent than ever, making the film's message about the necessity of public control and regulatory oversight highly relevant.
The concept of corporate personhood and the legal rights granted to corporations, explored in the film, remain contentious topics. Legal battles and debates over corporate accountability, ethical behavior, and the responsibilities of business entities towards stakeholders other than shareholders are ongoing. High-profile corporate scandals and ethical breaches continue to surface, underscoring the documentary's argument about systemic issues within the corporate structure.
The film's examination of economic disparities and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few corporations is still a critical issue. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted economic inequalities, with many corporations, especially in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors, seeing substantial profits while small businesses and workers face unprecedented challenges. This disparity has intensified calls for economic reforms and a reevaluation of corporate roles in society.
The influence of corporations on politics and policy-making, a key theme in "The Corporation," remains a vital concern. The extensive lobbying efforts and political contributions by corporations continue to shape legislation and regulatory environments in ways that often favor corporate interests over public welfare. This ongoing dynamic highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the relationship between business and government.
While the documentary paints a critical picture of corporations, it also opens the door to discussions about alternative business models that prioritize social and environmental goals alongside profit. In recent years, there has been a growing movement towards corporate social responsibility (CSR), environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria, and the development of B Corporations that seek to balance profit with purpose. These evolving models align with some of the documentary's calls for change, demonstrating its forward-looking relevance.
"The Corporation" remains a powerful and relevant documentary that continues to provoke critical thinking about the role of business in society. Its insights into corporate behavior, legal frameworks, and societal impact are as pertinent today as they were two decades ago. As the world faces complex challenges that require responsible and ethical corporate involvement, the documentary serves as a reminder of the importance of vigilance, regulation, and the pursuit of alternative business practices that align with the common good.
Unveiling Corporate Corruption
The film posits that the fundamental design and mandate of corporations inherently drive them to prioritize profit maximization over social responsibility. This priority is embedded in the legal and operational frameworks of corporations, which are structured to serve the interests of shareholders above all else. This shareholder primacy model obligates corporate managers to focus on increasing shareholder value, often leading to decisions that can be detrimental to employees, communities, and the environment.
Corporations have become adept at navigating and exploiting legal loopholes to their advantage, often disregarding the spirit of the law. This crafty and deceitful behavior enables them to maximize profits while minimizing accountability. By leveraging their vast resources, corporations employ armies of lawyers and lobbyists to find and exploit weaknesses in the legal system, allowing them to operate in ways that would be deemed unethical or even illegal if scrutinized closely.
The relentless quest for profit often leads corporations to engage in practices that harm communities and society at large. Environmental degradation, labor exploitation, and unsafe working conditions are just a few examples of how corporations prioritize financial gains over social responsibility. The documentary highlights several notorious scandals, such as those involving Enron, Worldcom, and Arthur Andersen, to illustrate how corporate malfeasance results in widespread harm.
One of the most disturbing aspects of corporate behavior is the blatant disregard for the well-being of individuals and communities. Corporations often lack empathy and concern for those harmed by their actions. When individuals are affected by corporate misconduct—whether through environmental pollution, unsafe products, or exploitative labor practices—the primary concern of corporate leaders is typically the potential damage to the corporation's reputation and financial standing, rather than the suffering of the affected parties. This lack of social consciousness is a recurring theme in corporate conduct, as decisions are driven by profit considerations rather than ethical obligations or compassion.
One of the most egregious aspects of corporate misconduct is the capture of politicians and regulators. Corporations view "buying" political influence and regulatory leniency as just another cost of doing business. This corrupt practice undermines the integrity of democratic institutions and ensures that corporate interests take precedence over the public good. By financing political campaigns, lobbying aggressively, and offering lucrative post-government employment to regulators, corporations ensure that their interests are protected and advanced.
The unethical conduct of corporations is facilitated by the complicity of those who act as Owners, CEOs, Directors, Managers, and staff who collaborate without blowing the whistle. This systemic issue is not just about a few bad actors but involves a culture that encourages and rewards unethical behaviour. The fear of retaliation, job loss, or legal repercussions often prevents insiders from speaking out against corporate misconduct, allowing these practices to continue unchecked.
The documentary sheds light on the corrupt, crafty, crooked, deceitful, dishonest, illegal, petty, ruthless, selfish, shady, shameless, underhanded, and unethical conduct of modern exploitative corporations. It underscores the urgent need for reform and greater public control to ensure that corporations serve the public interest rather than merely enriching their shareholders at the expense of society. By unveiling the systemic issues and the complicity of corporate insiders, the film calls for a re-evaluation of the role of corporations in our lives and the implementation of measures to hold them accountable for their actions.
The Government as a Corporation
Understanding the nature of government through the lens of corporate structure offers a compelling perspective on the operations and functions of the state. Sir John William Salmond, in his seminal work "Jurisprudence" (1902), eloquently describes the state or political society (government) as an association of human beings established to achieve certain ends by certain means. This view, articulated 120 years ago, remains relevant today as it underscores the functional and structural similarities between governments and corporations.
Salmond's analysis highlights the parallels between governments and corporations. Both are associations of individuals organized to pursue specific objectives. However, the primary distinction lies in their functions and the scope of their influence. While a corporation focuses on profit maximization and shareholder value, the state is concerned with maintaining peace, order, and civilization. Yet, this functional difference does not preclude the state from exhibiting corporate-like behaviour, particularly in how it manages resources, exercises power, and interacts with its constituents.
When we consider the state as a corporate entity, it becomes evident that governments can exhibit exploitative tendencies similar to those seen in the corporate world. These tendencies are often manifested in policies and practices that prioritize institutional interests over the welfare of individuals.
As an example, let’s examine the story of the Maralinga veterans, exposed to radiation during the British atomic tests in the Australian outback between 1956 and 1963, is a stark example of governmental neglect and mistreatment. Initially, the Australian government's response was inadequate, marked by a lack of transparency and reluctance to acknowledge the extent of the health risks and contamination. Many veterans reported severe health issues, including cancers and radiation-related illnesses, but struggled for years to receive recognition and support. Although the government eventually conducted health studies and offered compensation, the process was slow and bureaucratic, often failing to meet the veterans' needs. Clean-up efforts at the test site have been debated, with some areas remaining hazardous despite these measures. This handling reveals a troubling prioritization of cost savings over the well-being of veterans, reflecting an exploitative approach that often compromises consistent and proper support. The cycle of inadequate recognition, interrupted treatment, and insufficient compensation highlights significant issues in transparency and accountability. This tale of appalling treatment calls for urgent reforms to ensure that governments uphold their responsibilities to all citizens, particularly those who have served their country.
Another illustrative account of the mistreatment of veterans can be found in the story of a soldier wounded in Vietnam. This soldier tripped a booby trap while on patrol, resulting in severe injuries: the explosion shredded his buttock and the backs of his upper and lower legs. These injuries were debilitating, leading to a long and painful recuperation period. Even forty years later, he continued to receive treatment for his injuries. Despite consulting some of Australia's most eminent surgeons, the veteran found that the recommended treatment for him to maintain a life with minimal pain and continued mobility was weekly hydrotherapy. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) policies obstructed this advice. When the DVA deemed his injuries sufficiently manageable and ceased the hydrotherapy sessions, his condition inevitably deteriorated, and the treatment would resume, only to be stopped again once slight improvements were noted. This cycle of starting and stopping hydrotherapy failed to maintain his condition and, in fact, contributed to a gradual decline with each round of interrupted treatment. This story highlights the exploitative nature of government as a corporation, fundamentally prioritizing cost savings over the responsibility to provide consistent and proper support to the veteran.
Governments, much like corporations, can display a lack of empathy and social responsibility. The bureaucratic nature of government institutions often leads to systemic inefficiencies and insensitivity towards the needs of individuals. Just as corporations exploit legal loopholes to maximize profits, governments can manipulate administrative procedures to their advantage. This manipulation often results in delaying or denying rightful claims, effectively minimizing the financial burden on the state at the expense of individuals. The use of complex regulations and requirements can be seen as a tactic to deter claimants, mirroring the corporate strategy of exploiting legal frameworks to avoid accountability.
The government's tendency to prioritize institutional interests over individual welfare is evident in various sectors. In the case of veterans' affairs, the focus often shifts towards managing budgets and minimizing expenditures rather than addressing the legitimate needs of veterans. This prioritization mirrors the corporate emphasis on profit margins and shareholder returns, where the primary concern is the institution's financial health rather than the impact of its actions on individuals.
By examining the government through the lens of corporate behaviour, we can better understand the exploitative nature of political entities. Sir John William Salmond's insights, articulated 120 years ago, reveal that the state, like any other association, can exhibit characteristics of a corporation, prioritizing institutional goals over individual welfare. This perspective is crucial for recognizing and addressing the systemic issues within government operations, particularly in areas such as veterans' affairs, where the lack of empathy and social responsibility can have profound and detrimental effects on individuals. As with corporations, there is an urgent need for reform and greater accountability to ensure that governments serve the public interest and uphold their responsibilities to all citizens.
The Indifference of Politicians
Politicians, as the decision-makers within governments, often cannot hide their false exhibition and façade of having an overly concerned demeanour. Anyone with an ounce of insight can see straight through this poor acting. This reality starkly contrasts with the portrayal of political leaders as guardians of public welfare. The truth is, their primary concern tends to revolve around maintaining political power and securing votes, rather than genuinely caring for the lives at risk due to their policies and decisions.
When a government decides to send troops to a war zone, the decision is rarely, if ever, made with the lives of individual soldiers in mind. Politicians are more concerned with the broader political and strategic implications of military actions. For instance, during the Iraq War, numerous reports highlighted how political leaders, particularly in the U.S. and U.K., were more focused on the geopolitical benefits and the demonstration of power rather than the human cost of war. The significant loss of life among soldiers was often viewed through the lens of public opinion and potential backlash rather than genuine concern for the individuals who were deployed..
The Vietnam War provides a poignant example of this indifference. The protracted conflict saw significant opposition and protests due to the high casualty rates and the visible toll on American soldiers. Yet, political leaders persisted with the war effort, often downplaying the human cost. Documents such as the Pentagon Papers revealed that U.S. officials knew the war was unlikely to be won, yet they continued to send soldiers into harm’s way, driven by concerns about national prestige and fear of appearing weak against communism.
The story of the Maralinga veterans, exposed to radiation during the British atomic tests in Australia, underscores the exploitative nature of government priorities. Despite knowing the dangers, the British and Australian governments proceeded with the tests, subjecting military personnel to harmful radiation. For years, affected veterans struggled for recognition and support, facing bureaucratic hurdles and a lack of genuine empathy from political leaders. The handling of their cases was more about managing costs and minimizing political fallout rather than addressing the severe health consequences faced by these individuals.
Beyond the military context, political indifference extends to civilian lives as well. The handling of public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, revealed how political considerations often overshadowed the imperative to protect lives. Delayed responses, inadequate healthcare provisions, and conflicting messaging were frequently driven by concerns about economic impacts and political optics rather than prioritizing the health and safety of citizens.
The consistent theme across these examples is that the lives of individual citizens are secondary to the political calculus of those in power. Politicians are driven by the need to maintain their positions, secure votes, and manage public perception. The deaths of unknown individuals, be they soldiers, healthcare workers, or civilians, are often viewed as collateral damage in the pursuit of broader political objectives. This stark reality calls for greater accountability and a re-evaluation of how political decisions are made, emphasizing the need for genuine empathy and responsibility towards those who bear the brunt of governmental actions.
If one remains wilfully blind to the realities of the political desire for control at almost any cost, one is incapable of making good decisions for oneself and family. In fact, taking every word a politician says as the truth is not just naïve but dangerously self-destructive. One must take responsibility for oneself, scrutinize political motives, and demand accountability to prevent being exploited by those in power. By recognizing and addressing this exploitative nature, there can be a push towards reforms that prioritize human lives over political expediency, ensuring that governments truly serve the public interest and uphold their responsibilities to all citizens.
Closing Remarks
"The Corporation" documentary exposes the systemic issues within corporate structures, highlighting how the legal and operational frameworks of corporations inherently drive them to prioritize profit over social responsibility. This focus on profit maximization often leads to detrimental decisions affecting employees, communities, and the environment. Through case studies such as Enron, Worldcom, and Arthur Andersen, the film demonstrates that these issues are not isolated incidents but symptomatic of deeper systemic problems. The documentary further explores the psychological profile of corporations, revealing traits akin to psychopathic personalities—lacking empathy and driven by self-interest.
Similarly, governments, viewed as corporate entities, exhibit exploitative tendencies. Sir John William Salmond's 1902 definition of the state as an association established to achieve specific ends by specific means remains relevant today, underscoring the functional and structural similarities between governments and corporations. Both entities prioritize their institutional goals over individual welfare, often displaying a lack of genuine concern for the well-being of people.
Veterans as Examples of Political Exploitation
The use of veterans' experiences illustrates the harsh reality of political exploitation and neglect. When politicians send troops to war, they are fully aware that there will be casualties. The implicit contract between the soldier and the government is that the soldier agrees to fight, and the government agrees to look after them if they are wounded and provide recompense for their families if they are killed. However, these examples demonstrate that governments often fail to fulfil their obligations.
The Maralinga veterans, exposed to radiation during British atomic tests in the Australian outback, highlight governmental neglect and mistreatment. Despite knowing the dangers, the British and Australian governments proceeded with the tests, subjecting military personnel to harmful radiation. Initially, the Australian government's response was marked by a lack of transparency and reluctance to acknowledge the health risks and contamination. Many veterans reported severe health issues, including cancers and radiation-related illnesses, but struggled for years to receive recognition and support. The government's slow and bureaucratic compensation process often failed to meet the veterans' needs, reflecting a troubling prioritization of cost savings over their well-being.
The story of a soldier wounded in Vietnam further underscores the exploitative nature of government policies. Despite severe injuries from a booby trap explosion, the veteran faced a cycle of starting and stopping hydrotherapy treatment dictated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). This inconsistent care led to a gradual decline in his condition, emphasizing the government's focus on managing budgets rather than providing consistent and proper support.
The Indifference of Politicians and Complicit Bureaucrats
Politicians and complicit bureaucrats often cannot hide their false exhibition of concern. Their primary goal tends to revolve around maintaining political power and securing votes, rather than genuinely caring for the lives at risk due to their policies. The Vietnam War and the Maralinga veterans' cases illustrate this indifference, where political decisions are driven by broader strategic goals rather than the human cost.
Confronting the Reality
If one remains wilfully blind to the political desire for control at almost any cost, one is incapable of making good decisions for oneself and family. Taking every word a politician says as truth is not just naïve but dangerously self-destructive. One must take responsibility, scrutinize political motives, and demand accountability to prevent exploitation by those in power. Recognizing and addressing this exploitative nature can push towards reforms that prioritize human lives over political expediency, ensuring that governments truly serve the public interest and uphold their responsibilities to all citizens.
In conclusion, "The Corporation" serves as a powerful reminder of the need for vigilance and reform in both corporate and governmental practices. By demanding accountability and prioritizing ethical behaviour, we can work towards a more just and sustainable society that genuinely cares for the well-being of its people.
I am pretty sure I have seen this film, but am definitely going to go back and watch it again. Your commentary is great and is a reminder of how in line I am with everything you have shared. My commitment over the last 30 years to develop a framework of peace has been fueled by films like this. My conclusion after my lifetime of analysis is that we have to understand, value and prioritise 'life'....all life. We need to go further than human-centred design and understand that it is the shared characteristics of all life that ought to be the basis of all our system design. I have described this in my Peace Bull booklets: six propositions for peace. The basis of the life centred design I propose are ten universal optimum need states, based on shared characteristics of all life: optimum change, optimum choice, optimum communication, optimum conflict, optimum connection, optimum consciousness, optimum energy, optimum form, optimum motion and optimum space. I am developing these ten need states into a design tool called Peace Compass. The purpose of creating this design tool is to make it easier for people to make a choice that leads to peace rather than a choice that leads to corruption.