Hunt_Corporation

//The Corporation,// Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott & Joel Bakan, 2003
 * 1.** **Title, director and release year?**

150 years ago the corporation had no role in American society. Today, the corporation is the dominant institution in the country. In 1712, the invention of the coal mine allowed for “more x per man hour.” With this creation came a revolution in production which led to the rethinking of business structure. In the late 19th century, the “corporation” would be created by local governments to allow the hedging of risk and the joining of companies. These corporations were, “Associations chartered by a state to accomplish a task, could not own other corporation, and had to serve the public good. Obviously things have now changed and the fundamental question this film asks is whether the corporation, as it stands today, still serves the public good. Through an analysis of “psychotic” the film argues that corporations have gotten out of hand.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

This film doesn’t touch on too many exact sustainability problems, rather describing the oppressing, hegemonic power of corporations as an overarching problem that then leads to the many obvious sustainability problems.
 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**
 * -Corporate malaise in environmental issues: because corporations are not “forced” to be aware of community or environmental issues – unless the market begins to desire it – rarely do companies do anything good for the environment, conversely companies often emit many negative externalities: toxic waster, pollution, human disease creation etc..
 * -Public Good?: Corporations seem to only pursue profits. “Corporations are concerned only with shareholders, and not with stakeholders or community.” Even the Harvard business professor has trouble describing the definition of a corporation, admitting that profit seeking is an ends in and of itself.
 * -Corporate power in the government: Forget just lobbying, many corporations have other strong influences on the same government that sets their rules for corporate operation. After the passing of the 14th amendment that protected the newly freed slaves, corporate lawyers fought hard to get judicial consideration of a corporation as a “person” and thus out of much risk and into a whole new world of expanded influence.

I particularly found the seeming conversion of Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface Carpet Company. Ray has a particularly poignant quote as a certain point when he describes his high cliff metaphor. In so many words, he describes humanity as falling off a cliff, slowly inching towards the edge of impending doom. Yet he optimistically describes our ingenuity and ability to develop ingenious way to save ourselves. I also found the discussion by Noam Chomsky to be particularly significant. Chomsky discusses institutional roles vs. the roles of individuals, saying “A person may be perfectly virtuous in their beliefs and composure, but is bound by the institution, for example a benevolent slave owner.”
 * 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

Can’t remember any part that didn’t really convince me. I felt as though it was VERY convincing in its mission.
 * 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

Having been most compelled by Ray Anderson, I decided to research a bit about his company: Quote from Interface website: “Interface is the worldwide leader in design, production and sales of environmentally-responsible modular carpet for the commercial, institutional, and residential markets, and a leading designer and manufacturer of commercial broadloom.” ([]) I researched Ray and found a great NYT article about him ([]) A few quotes from the article: "What Ray Anderson calls his “conversion experience” occurred in the summer of 1994, when he was asked to give the sales force at Interface, the carpet tile company he founded, some talking points about the company’s approach to the environment. “ “Use of fossil fuels is down 45 percent (and net greenhouse gas production, by weight, is down 60 percent), he said, while sales are up 49 percent. Globally, the company’s carpet-making uses one-third the water it used to. The company’s worldwide contribution to landfills has been cut by 80 percent.
 * 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?**

I really liked how this film could be equally effective directed towards a corporate CEO as it could a 6th grade student. It seems to transcend title through its interdisciplinary cast; CEOs, scholars, victims, young, old. The film allows viewers the fodder to build a frustration with the American corporation, yet have a strong hope for the future. If there was no optimistic leaders like Ray Anderson, then this film would have been more of a stagnant apocalyptic, which never accomplishes too much in my opinion. I think the film certainly is inspiring and creates an understanding of why we should re-think corporate structure.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**

This was another film that did not actually discuss exactly how to “fix it” per se. It does however spark the discussion necessary to think about what can be done. This was evident in our discussion after the film. I remember talking about how the Supreme Court should have a role in all of this, and things like the 14th amendment being applied to a corporation could someday be repealed. Of course in light of recent events, like the ability for corporations to have increased political lobbying power, these progressive ideas have been suppressed.
 * 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

I honestly thought that the film carried out most of its intended purpose. In terms of environmental value, it could have discussed more about the environmental potential and effects. It seemed more broad in that it discussed the business and history much more so than it did actually environmental issues. However, I found this to be fine as it was thus not too preachy. A CEO might have thought it was emotional propaganda if it was too preachy and green. ([]) [] []
 * 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**
 * Citations:**