Bensley+Annotations+5

David Bensley Annotation #5 // The Corporation // Words: 1,001

// The Corporation // (2003) was directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott.
 * 1. Title, director and release year? **

**2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The documentary focuses on the idea that corporations have become excessively powerful entities in politics in business. Since the passage of the 14th Amendment and attaining the status of personhood, they have grown into organizations far larger, more influential, and more profit-driven than was originally intended when the concept of a corporation came about.

**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 initially paints the modern corporation as a sociopathic entity, listing the symptoms of a sociopath and giving evidence of corporations behaving in each of those ways (e.g., inability to feel guilt, deceitfulness, reckless disregard for others). Most of these arguments discuss corporate trends on a broad scale or give anecdotal evidence; it would be very difficult to show ‘scientific’ evidence in this area.

The narrative contains many examples of corporations’ abusive practices, including the use of sweatshop labor, abuses of the environment, suppression of critics, and commoditization of human needs (i.e., water). There is an overarching idea that the institution of modern corporations, not necessarily its managers, are the “true evil.” There is a comparison to the slave trade, where corporations are the institution of slavery and company executives are like slave owners; to a certain degree, the slave owner is a victim of circumstance. Even if CEOs want to make changes, they are limited by a responsibility to stockholders, or else they will be ousted.

There is a certain amount of emotional appeal in the documentary, particularly in the segments about the Bolivian water protests and the collusion between Nazis and corporations. However, the film mainly appeals to reason rather than emotion.

**4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

The film mainly focuses on political, economic, informational, organizational, behavioral, and ecological problems. The political and organizational problems have to do with the increasing influence of corporations in politics and society, while at the same time they seem to be less and less concerned with any stakeholders’ interests other than their shareholders. They maintain the Chicago School idea that corporations have no capacity for determining what is “socially responsible,” and that it is anti-capitalist to make them try to be socially responsible.

There is also a hidden war of information being fought by corporations. This was highlighted best in the film’s interviews with Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, two former Fox News employees. Fox News willingly worked with Monsanto to censor an investigative story that would have damaged the latter’s reputation, simply because they wanted to maintain Monsanto’s sponsorship funds.

**5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The most compelling part of the film for me was the story of Fox News and Monsanto. It clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that companies will go to extreme measures, even taking illegal actions, to ensure that information is not released that may damage their bottom lines. This is not simply limited to information such as product failures, but the fact that a product is actually killing human beings.

**6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

I was not particularly convinced by the film’s discussion of pursuing profits from human tragedies. Having read Naomi Klein’s //The Shock Doctrine//, I am well aware of how vast an issue this is, but I didn’t feel like the film expounded on the topic enough, even in the interview of Ms. Klein.

**7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The film best addresses consumers in wealthier nations, particularly the United States. These people are the most likely to be the customers of large multinationals, and are targeted as the group that must take action to effect change in corporate policies.

**8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

My impression of the film is that it tried to focus too much on concepts, but lacked scientific information. There were mentions of destructive practices, and much was discussed about being “green,” especially by Ray Anderson, former CEO of Interface, a carpet company. However, actual environmental data was lacking.

**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.**

The film ends with a few notes on what may be the way forward in terms of making corporations less influential and less destructive. First, it suggests changing local laws, such as was done by two towns in Pennsylvania when they removed corporations’ ability to claim the rights of a person. The other important note that the film ends on is that market demand will lead the way in changing corporate practices; corporations have “no principles,” so if sustainability becomes profitable, it will happen.

**10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)** After hearing so much about Interface’s sustainability initiatives, I wanted to find out whether they were on track to meet their stated goals. I found that their factories are now using 30% renewable energy and have reduced their actual factory emissions by about 70% since their peak in 2000. These are very promising results, as the company appears to still be performing well with these and many other initiatives. [] I also wanted to find out what Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were doing now, particularly whether they were able to find jobs in the media industry after the Fox News situation ended. I found that Steve Wilson is now operating his own nonprofit investigative news organization. Jane Akre is editor-in-chief of InjuryBoard.com, a website for a group of personal injury lawyers. [] []