Hartmann+Annotation+3



Thomas Hartmann March 17, 2014 Word Count: 1255


 * Title:** The Corporation
 * Director:** Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott
 * Release Year:** 2003

The central argument of //The Corporation// is that corporations are becoming too powerful, which is causing many problems because their sole motivation is to make a profit for stock holders. For example, corporations do not factor in externalities such as harming workers, human health, animals, and the environment. Any factors that do not directly impact profit are not taken into consideration when corporations make decisions. The film argues that this different mindset that corporations and stock holders have is the core of the problem.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film primarily uses emotional appeal in its many examples of how corporations have no moral consideration. One of the emotional appeals that the film uses is how it describes that corporations fit the description of a psychopath and then ask the viewer if a psychopath should have such significant control over everything. The film also uses commentary by experts such as economists, scientists, and CEO’s to convey arguments and present evidence. For example, the film has an economist explain what an externality is when corporations make decisions and how these are what causes problems such as neglecting workers and hurting the environment.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The film describes many sustainability problems such as carbon-dioxide emissions, pollution, and human health hazards such as chemicals and how corporations worsen these problems. The film blames this result on problems in the balance of power between corporations, the government, and the public, which has resulted from the fact that corporations are legally bound to make a profit for their stock holders. The examples from the film include technological problems such as researching the dangers of chemicals like rBGH, legal problems such as the morality of patenting life and DNA, and the extreme extent to which corporations control media and information through advertising and controlling which stories make it on air.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

One part of that film that I found compelling was its argument that corporations display many fit the description of a psychopath surprisingly well. For example, corporations show no concern for people other than their stock holders. They also refuse to admit guilt to problems such as dangerous products. Further, they are willing to lie, break the law, and deviate from social norms and standards of conduct for their own benefit. This argument was particularly convincing because it gives an emotionally appealing explanation of why people feel that corporations are dangerously out of control and should not have the powers that they have obtained.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

Another part of the film that was particularly convincing was its argument that corporations are willing to go to extremes to make a profit including doing business with official enemies of the United States. For example, the film explains how IBM helped the Nazi’s managing their concentration camps by providing them with punch cards (equivalent to computers today) that were specifically designed to keep track of people and their fates. Again, this argument was very compelling because it shows how corporations do not consider externalities such as human suffering, starvation, and death when they make decisions.

Because the film was particularly convincing in general, it is difficult to determine an argument that was not compelling. However, the films argument that a cost must be placed on contributed to sustainability problems in order to force corporations into making decisions that take into account these problems was relatively weak. Today, more corporations take these problems into account, which makes it less of a priority than it was when this film was released in 2003.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The film effectively addresses both an audience of the general public and an audience of stock holders and corporate employees. The significant quantity of emotional appeal, such as advertisement targeting innocent children and corporations such as Monsanto blatantly lying about results of scientific studies, effectively makes the public concerned about the power of corporations and has the potential to instill guilt in the stock holders, corporate employees, and regulators that have the most power to fix these problems.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

Overall, the film is very effective at educating its audience about the environmental, social, and moral problems that have resulted from corporations and capitalism in general. However, I feel that the film presents a single-sided argument. For example, even in commentaries by CEO’s of corporations, the film includes very little information about how important corporations are to the economy and refuses to consider the negative impacts of restricting corporations in the ways that the film suggests.
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The film includes a message of hope and potentially actions that could be taken to correct the problems with corporations, which is vitally important to having any chance of making changes. For example, the film suggests that a monetary cost could be placed on what are currently externalities such as harm to workers, human health, animals, and the environment to transform them into internalities. Further, Michael Moore ends the film by saying that we need to take advantage of the fundamental flaw in capitals to regain control. As Moore puts it, a rich man will sell you a rope to hang himself with if he thinks he will make a buck off of it.
 * 9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

In learning that corporations have been caught doing business with official enemies of the United States even though it is illegal, I wanted to learn more about how these laws work and how corporations are getting away with it. Rebecca Leung, in her article, “Doing Business with the Enemy,” she describes how corporations such as Halliburton, Conoco-Phillips, and General Electric have taken advantage of a loop hole in the law that it does not apply to subsidiaries that are not run by Americans. For example, Halliburton has a building in the Cayman Islands that is owned by a local company, which allows them to do business with Iran.
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

I was also compelled to see how Monsanto takes the lawsuits with farmers that have illegally saved seed and make it seem like they are the good guys. In their article discussing their lawsuits with farmers, they argue that the 145 lawsuits that they have filed against farmers is small relative to the 250,000 farmers that they sell seed to. Monsanto also makes it seem like breaking the law by saving their seed is not different than breaking other laws. This argument is likely hypocritical because I have no doubt that Monsanto, as a corporation devoted to its stock holders, is willing to break the law if it is more economically favorable than conforming to the law. I see that this is Monsanto’s attempt to minimize the negative impact of these lawsuits on their customer base.

Leung, Rebessa. “Doing Business with the Enemy.” //CBS News//. 22 Jan. 2004. <[]>.
 * Bibliography:**

“Saved Seed and Farmer Lawsuits.” //Monstanto//. 2014. <[]>.