Spring is here. The snow is gone, the crocus is up and the robins have returned. In Washington, the cherry trees blossom as Congress drones on fruitlessly over campaign finance reform – which reminds me we are approaching the season of the annual general meeting. In one of the last vestiges of control the federal government exerts over American corporations, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires each corporation to make the board of directors available to shareholders once a year. If you’ve never been to one, you should go while you still can. It’s quite a sight: a dozen millionaires on a dais, each one stoked to the gills with Valium and Xanax to get him through his annual brush with hoi polloi.
In the past 15 years or so, investors of conscience, usually church groups or a pension fund, will use the annual general meeting to petition the board of directors to take a particular action. The petitioners may wish the corporation to behave in a more environmentally responsible manner or they may ask for more safeguards for workers. Often corporations are asked to cease doing business in countries with repressive regimes. In the 1980s it was South Africa, today it’s likely to be the People’s Republic of China or Burma.
Petitioners have to surmount several obstacles before they can address the annual meeting and the petition is usually rejected. The board of directors often controls, directly or by proxy, over 50 percent of the voting stock. After some discussion of the issue at hand, the chairman of the board rises to announce that the petition will not pass. He thanks the petitioners for bringing this important matter to the board’s attention, pays some lip service to the worthiness of the cause and then says something like this: “As much as we would like to endorse this proposal, we cannot and we will not. To do so would be irresponsible. As directors of this corporation, we have only one responsibility and that is to return a profit to the shareholder. To take any other factor into consideration would be reckless, unethical and dare I say – immoral.” The other directors, momentarily roused from their stupor, nod in assent.
So the corporation only exists to make a profit; only one item on the corporate code of ethics. Is it just me, or does this kind of thinking carry a whiff of Nuremburg morality about it? We were only following orders, we were only making a profit.
Let us consider this corporate mono-ethicism for a moment in the context of political contributions. Many American corporations who claim the ethical imperative of profit uber alles in dealing with tyrants, endangering workers and befouling the planet, also give millions of dollars in campaign contributions to politicians of both parties. If you ask the corporate directors why they give so generously, they’ll tell you it’s because they believe in the principles of democracy. But wait a minute! Are the directors not ethically and morally bound to ignore the principles of democracy, just as they studiously ignore worker safety and the environment?
How can it be that American corporations give millions of dollars to American politicians, expecting nothing in return, merely because they believe in the principles of democracy, while at the same time they are doing deals with repressive anti-democratic tyrants in China and Burma, because they are morally compelled to return a profit to shareholders?
There’s a name for all this, it’s cognitive dissonance. It’s the ability to simultaneously hold two diametrically opposed beliefs. Ronald Reagan made this popular in Washington and it’s still around.
Besides giving money to politicians, many corporations underwrite a trade group called USA Engage, which lobbies the administration and Congress against ever imposing sanctions against any government, no matter how bloodthirsty or cruel.
I know this all sounds contradictory and confusing, but it’s really not. The truth is, corporations are being faithful to their blindered, one-issue moral code: make a profit. They are successfully bribing politicians and buying influence. They’re not interested in democracy, they’re interested in subverting democracy.
Democracy in Action
Spring is here. The snow is gone, the crocus is up and the robins have returned. In Washington, the cherry trees blossom as Congress drones on fruitlessly over campaign finance reform – which reminds me we are approaching the season of the annual general meeting. In one of the last vestiges of control the federal government exerts over American corporations, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires each corporation to make the board of directors available to shareholders once a year. If you’ve never been to one, you should go while you still can. It’s quite a sight: a dozen millionaires on a dais, each one stoked to the gills with Valium and Xanax to get him through his annual brush with hoi polloi.
In the past 15 years or so, investors of conscience, usually church groups or a pension fund, will use the annual general meeting to petition the board of directors to take a particular action. The petitioners may wish the corporation to behave in a more environmentally responsible manner or they may ask for more safeguards for workers. Often corporations are asked to cease doing business in countries with repressive regimes. In the 1980s it was South Africa, today it’s likely to be the People’s Republic of China or Burma.
Petitioners have to surmount several obstacles before they can address the annual meeting and the petition is usually rejected. The board of directors often controls, directly or by proxy, over 50 percent of the voting stock. After some discussion of the issue at hand, the chairman of the board rises to announce that the petition will not pass. He thanks the petitioners for bringing this important matter to the board’s attention, pays some lip service to the worthiness of the cause and then says something like this: “As much as we would like to endorse this proposal, we cannot and we will not. To do so would be irresponsible. As directors of this corporation, we have only one responsibility and that is to return a profit to the shareholder. To take any other factor into consideration would be reckless, unethical and dare I say – immoral.” The other directors, momentarily roused from their stupor, nod in assent.
So the corporation only exists to make a profit; only one item on the corporate code of ethics. Is it just me, or does this kind of thinking carry a whiff of Nuremburg morality about it? We were only following orders, we were only making a profit.
Let us consider this corporate mono-ethicism for a moment in the context of political contributions. Many American corporations who claim the ethical imperative of profit uber alles in dealing with tyrants, endangering workers and befouling the planet, also give millions of dollars in campaign contributions to politicians of both parties. If you ask the corporate directors why they give so generously, they’ll tell you it’s because they believe in the principles of democracy. But wait a minute! Are the directors not ethically and morally bound to ignore the principles of democracy, just as they studiously ignore worker safety and the environment?
How can it be that American corporations give millions of dollars to American politicians, expecting nothing in return, merely because they believe in the principles of democracy, while at the same time they are doing deals with repressive anti-democratic tyrants in China and Burma, because they are morally compelled to return a profit to shareholders?
There’s a name for all this, it’s cognitive dissonance. It’s the ability to simultaneously hold two diametrically opposed beliefs. Ronald Reagan made this popular in Washington and it’s still around.
Besides giving money to politicians, many corporations underwrite a trade group called USA Engage, which lobbies the administration and Congress against ever imposing sanctions against any government, no matter how bloodthirsty or cruel.
I know this all sounds contradictory and confusing, but it’s really not. The truth is, corporations are being faithful to their blindered, one-issue moral code: make a profit. They are successfully bribing politicians and buying influence. They’re not interested in democracy, they’re interested in subverting democracy.