Corporate Citizenship

[Superman]

Far be it from me to press against the inside of an envelope or otherwise test boundaries but sometimes I evaluate ideas by taking them to an extreme in my thoughts. Besides...I missed our discussion about corporate capture (purchase) of our public policy making process. This'll probably get moved, but it's worth a try.

Some folks are uncomfortable with the (my) position that corporations have NO business being involved in any way, shape or form (other than providing testimony when requested by Congress) in public policy decisions. They are citizens in some respects, but they cannot vote. Some people welcome their involvement (interference, hijacking), and I assume this is because they still subscribe to the belief that whatever is good for corporations is therefore also good for America's voting citizens.

Okay. Let's give those corporations a vote. Like.....one ballot can be cast by a corporation's board chairman on behalf of that corporation for each million dollars in revenue. And perhaps we should extend that to partnerships and sole proprietorships. That way, the greater financial success a person, the greater 'stroke' he or she will have upon election results.

To me, that's really already the way it works but here I'm asking whether we formalize it. Recognize that financial success equals super-citizenship. Financial success buys you greater power, formally, in matters affecting everyone. Like the current situation, only made more visible.

To the victor go the spoils. Capitalism accelerated.

Whaddya think? Good idea? Maybe those successful people are smarter, and we'd get better decisions. Maybe lazy peoples' voices should be diluted by a stronger voice from those more productive.

[Dottore]

Corporations today exist solely to maximize shareholder value, and pay a large chunk of that value to management in the form of bonuses.

Everything else is secondary.

It would be folly to enfranchise corporations any further in the policy making process unless and until they are more clearly regulated and are more motivated to be good corporate citizens.

They should be motivated to manufacture at home, to comply with environmental and labour standards, care about the communities in which they operate, build quality products to high standards, research and innovate etc etc.

Until these become corporate priorities, they are just pirates who rape and pillage. Why enfranchise them??

[DARISC]

.Good description.

[BE911SC]

Search YouTube for Chris Hedges and his talk "The Death of the Liberal Class." 45 sobering minutes on how corporations, since WWI, slowly took over control of not just American government (federal, state and local) but also our judiciary, culture, education system and news media (print and electronic). Listen for how he explains the reason why liberals are tolerated in modern American society, mainly because they are essentially totally ineffective. He is particularly hard on Bill Clinton and Barak Obama (and the Democratic party as a whole) for their complete selling-out of liberal values and of the American middle class. The follow-up video is the Q&A after his talk, another 39 minutes worth watching.

[Superman]

Dottore, I don't see a way of redirecting the corporate agenda and I don't think you do either. Their agenda is narrow and focused. Maximize the value of a share of common stock. Period, paragraph, end of story. Minimizing the harm they create along the way cannot be done by asking that they set aside their prime directive. The available tool is regulation. Disallowing certain specific behaviors. In my humble opinion. And quite frankly, I do not bemoan their agenda. I just think it should be recognized for what it is and stop imagining their agenda is broader than maximizing stock value. They simply do not have consciences. A CEO is legally prohibited from putting ethics before profits.

BE911SC.......you are obviously a pinko commie terrorist.

[RWebb]

the most recent trend is to have corps. pay attention to social responsibility

U Oregon and others have programs in "sustainable business" in the B-school and the Law school

in some sense a corp. is just a business form

[john70t]

Originally Posted by Superman

A CEO is legally prohibited from putting ethics before profits.

Therein lies the problem.

Short term agenda will almost always fail against even semi-incompetent long term planning.

[Superman]

RWebb......seriously, how do you get a corporation to eschew unethical profit opportunities when CEO's are legally mandated to deliver maximum profits? I do not see how they would voluntarily apply human consciences. They are conscience-free entities. (that is.....they are allowed to have consciences only in cases where ethical behavior can improve financial performance) This business of corporate management having heart or conscience is.....fantasy. Legal fantasy. According to my understanding and observation. Proponents of what's-good-for-corporations-is-always-good-for-everyone often assert that CEO's are humans who are guided by their consciences, and that is fantasy. According to my understanding. Aside from regulation......prohibited behaviors.....how can corporations be made into better citizens?

[Superman]

Originally Posted by john70t

Therein lies the problem.

Short term agenda will almost always fail against even semi-incompetent long term planning.

Financially, profits further away than just a few years......don't exist. They have little NPV. CEO's are not charged with maximizing profits eight years from now. They are mandated to maximize profits NOW. Boards of directors insist.

[Tobra]

Interesting. Would require changing the Constitution and would never fly, but interesting.

BTW, you bemoan their agenda every time the subject comes up.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by Superman

According to my understanding. Aside from regulation......prohibited behaviors.....how can corporations be made into better citizens?

Through a combination of (a) regulation of prohibited behaviour, (b) tax incentives for good citizenship and (c) changes to the corporate law.

In Germany for example, the broad actions of the company's Board are subject to the supervision of a Supervisory Board. The latter set policy and the parameters within which the Board may operate. Sounds radical, but it works well in many civil law countries.

The rapaciousness and immorality of the US corporate model is not the only way to organize a large enterprise.

[CurtEgerer]

Originally Posted by Superman

Far be it from me to press against the inside of an envelope or otherwise test boundaries but sometimes I evaluate ideas by taking them to an extreme in my thoughts. Besides...I missed our discussion about union capture (purchase) of our public policy making process. This'll probably get moved, but it's worth a try.

Some folks are uncomfortable with the (my) position that unions have NO business being involved in any way, shape or form (other than providing testimony when requested by Congress) in public policy decisions. They are citizens in some respects, but they cannot vote. Some people welcome their involvement (interference, hijacking), and I assume this is because they still subscribe to the belief that whatever is good for unions is therefore also good for America's voting citizens.

Okay. Let's give those unions a vote. Like.....one ballot can be cast by a union's kingpin on behalf of that union for each million dollars in dues confiscated. And perhaps we should extend that to the trial attorneys and political front groups like ACORN, etc. That way, the greater financial success a union, the greater 'stroke' he or she will have upon election results.

To me, that's really already the way it works but here I'm asking whether we formalize it. Recognize that thuggery equals super-citizenship. Thuggery buys you greater power, formally, in matters affecting everyone. Like the current situation, only made more visible.

To the victor go the spoils. Socialism accelerated.

Whaddya think? Good idea? Maybe those union thugs are smarter, and we'd get better decisions. Maybe productive job-creating peoples' voices should be diluted by a stronger voice from the takers in society who produce nothing of value.

Fixed

[quicksix]

I dont have the link handy,but I remember reading somewhere that corporations fit a psychopathic personality when using the DSM to analyze thier behavior.
Influence wielded by anybody or thing with that profile is suspect,at best.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Superman

RWebb......seriously, how do you get a corporation to eschew unethical profit opportunities when CEO's are legally mandated to deliver maximum profits? I do not see how they would voluntarily apply human consciences. They are conscience-free entities. (that is.....they are allowed to have consciences only in cases where ethical behavior can improve financial performance) This business of corporate management having heart or conscience is.....fantasy. Legal fantasy. According to my understanding and observation. Proponents of what's-good-for-corporations-is-always-good-for-everyone often assert that CEO's are humans who are guided by their consciences, and that is fantasy. According to my understanding. Aside from regulation......prohibited behaviors.....how can corporations be made into better citizens?

there is an old case on this involving Henry Ford paying workers a higher wage than required

that case has been superseded by a legal doctrine (or maybe statutes) termed the Business Judgement Rule -- i.e. if a biz says "we will do good works in order to obtain good will for our biz" then the courts (via a shareholder suit) will not inquire into it

A partnership or sole prop. of course can just do that w/o any claims to good will.

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by Superman

BE911SC.......you are obviously a pinko commie terrorist.

LOL! Far from it! I LOVE money but do not suffer any, well, not many illusions as to how it comes to me.

[BE911SC]

Conscience. It has no place in business and very little place in politics other than to induce (trick, con) people to vote for a certain candidate. It is viewed as a sign of weakness in both politics and in business. Well, it has a place in business if it can be used to increase profits but no other use. Yes, an actual small-business person (as opposed to a small businessperson) can show conscience in how they run their corner store or coffee kiosk but in large corporations, banks, etc., showing any conscience (or remorse) is a sign of weakness and among the highest of sins. Show your conscience and you are OUT. But don't take my word for it! Ask your employer, especially if your employer is a large corporation, about their corporate conscience--their corporate responsibilities other than profit and shareholder value and see what kind of response you get. Whistle-blowers are another good example of what your conscience can get you in the corporate and political world. Stand up and blow the whistle and see what happens to you. You're OUT. Thank you very much and you're FIRED. In the political realm the senators or congressmen conducting the fact-finding hearing over your whistle-blowing will say thank you for your testimony and for your standing up to this terrible wrong-doing. You'll walk out of the capitol into the sunshine and be on your own from that day forward, no matter how "liberal" the politicians conducting the hearing are purported to be.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by Superman

CEO's are legally mandated to deliver maximum profits

Citation to that law, please.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by Superman

Financially, profits further away than just a few years......don't exist. They have little NPV. CEO's are not charged with maximizing profits eight years from now. They are mandated to maximize profits NOW. Boards of directors insist.

Who is filling your pretty little head with this nonsense?!?

[BE911SC]

Oh, and I meant to add a comment about "business ethics." You all snickered, right? That's because it is an oxymoron. "Military intelligence." More snickers, especially if you're a vet, which I am as well. The concept of "business ethics" is a sop to the softies who business wants to sell stuff to. Even the hairiest Birkenstock-wearing sprout-eater is in many a corporation's marketing plan. The softies (in a business and political sense) are pandered to by "liberal" colleges with classes in "business ethics." The CEOs who are masters at marketing their company's and their own personal public image know well how to pander to anyone worried about ethics in the conduct of business. Steve Jobs comes to mind. He appears (appeared) to be liberal-lefty techie but his products are made in Chinese communist-controlled sweat shop factories where people commit suicide from the harsh conditions. But oh baby did Apple stock make a lot of people rich! Some liberal-lefty huh? Bill Gates too. Seemingly liberal-lefty but in actuality a pure for-profit corporatist who cares little for anything beyond his corporation's bottom line. He too is a master at controlling his and his corporation's public image, as seen in the works of his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He uses some of the billions he'll never be able to spend on global health initiatives and other liberal-lefty friendly causes, which one could see as his conscience coming through. But Bill Gates is Number One at his corporation. He started it, he runs it (de facto), he still controls much of how it operates so no one is going to run him off the property for showing his conscience. As long as he makes the sharks richer he's safe to be a little liberal-lefty in his public image.

Business ethics. Everyone snickered again, didn't they.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Dottore

Corporations today exist solely to maximize shareholder value, and pay a large chunk of that value to management in the form of bonuses.

Everything else is secondary.

It would be folly to enfranchise corporations any further in the policy making process unless and until they are more clearly regulated and are more motivated to be good corporate citizens.

They should be motivated to manufacture at home, to comply with environmental and labour standards, care about the communities in which they operate, build quality products to high standards, research and innovate etc etc.

Until these become corporate priorities, they are just pirates who rape and pillage. Why enfranchise them??

Originally Posted by Superman

Dottore, I don't see a way of redirecting the corporate agenda and I don't think you do either....

Originally Posted by Dottore

Through a combination of (a) regulation of prohibited behaviour, (b) tax incentives for good citizenship and (c) changes to the corporate law.

In Germany for example, the broad actions of the company's Board are subject to the supervision of a Supervisory Board. The latter set policy and the parameters within which the Board may operate. Sounds radical, but it works well in many civil law countries.

The rapaciousness and immorality of the US corporate model is not the only way to organize a large enterprise.

I agree with the above, having worked for 23 years for a company, beginning 5 years into its mom & pop startup, experiencing its going public 10 years later, then watching us be underbid consistently by a huge, world wide corporation that wanted one particular facet of the company's expertise and who soon thereafter, when they'd brought my company to the brink of bankruptcy, bought the company for pennies on the dollar and scrapped what they didn't need (costing many long time employees their jobs).

I happened to be one of the key employees in the facet they wanted, so I stayed on and watched the quality of our product deteriorate (as well as the reputation of my old company, whose name was tacked onto the huge corporation's name for the product/services line) as corporate bean counters cut corners to improve the bottom line to keep the stockholders happy. Yup, that's the way it works.

Capitalism is the best system there is, but NOT if the machine is allowed to run wild and unregulated. If it is, sooner or later, like a steam engine with a flyball governor whose balls break their bonds and fly off through the walls, explosive catastrophe won't be long coming.

The post below is dead nuts accurate.

Originally Posted by BE911SC

Conscience. It has no place in business and very little place in politics other than to induce (trick, con) people to vote for a certain candidate. It is viewed as a sign of weakness in both politics and in business. Well, it has a place in business if it can be used to increase profits but no other use. Yes, an actual small-business person (as opposed to a small businessperson) can show conscience in how they run their corner store or coffee kiosk but in large corporations, banks, etc., showing any conscience (or remorse) is a sign of weakness and among the highest of sins. Show your conscience and you are OUT. But don't take my word for it! Ask your employer, especially if your employer is a large corporation, about their corporate conscience--their corporate responsibilities other than profit and shareholder value and see what kind of response you get. Whistle-blowers are another good example of what your conscience can get you in the corporate and political world. Stand up and blow the whistle and see what happens to you. You're OUT. Thank you very much and you're FIRED. In the political realm the senators or congressmen conducting the fact-finding hearing over your whistle-blowing will say thank you for your testimony and for your standing up to this terrible wrong-doing. You'll walk out of the capitol into the sunshine and be on your own from that day forward, no matter how "liberal" the politicians conducting the hearing are purported to be.