The+Corporation+-+JPH

**Directors:** Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott **Year:** 2003
 * Film:** The Corporation

**What is the central argument or narrative of the film?** The central argument of the film is that the corporation has developed the legal status of a person while exhibiting none of the humanitarian characteristics that keep civilization stable. A physiological evaluation of the modern corporation would diagnose it as a psychopath. The pursuit of profit at any cost is the goal of the corporation, and this has led to business practices which result in environmental and human health issues and the wants of the corporation being put ahead of the needs of the people.

**What sustainability problems does the film draw out?** //Censorship by Corporations// A Fox News affiliate station prepared to air an exposé on Monstanto’s Bovine Growth Hormone and its effects on human health. Prior to the segment airing Monsanto sent Fox News a fax threatening them with a law suit if they chose to air the segment. Over a year went by where Fox News and Monsanto tried to coerce the reporters from dropping the story. They attempted to bribe them, intimidate them, force them to rewrite the story almost 80 times, and eventually found an opportunity to fire the reporters. The courts did not give the reporters whistleblower status as they claimed that Fox News is under no obligation to report the truth. Therefore the reporters were not able to prosecute Fox News or Monsanto. Corporations using their power and influencing to silence information that is relevant to public health concerns is a major sustainability problem.

//Corporation as a Person// The courts system of the United States has granted corporations the right of individual personhood. Corporations are granted the same rights and privileges as individuals under the 14th Amendment, yet the nature of a corporation is limited liability. Therefore a corporation can act in the manner of a person yet assume very limited responsibly for its actions. This is a serious issue in that it makes it makes it very easy for citizens and activists to be targeted by corporations on basis of discrimination, while it makes it very challenging for citizens and activists to fight back against the corporations. Corporations have the rights of privacy and non-discriminatory access to resources as individuals. They also have the deep pockets and most assert their power and influence in government and in legal cases against individuals.

//Tragedy of the Commons// Multinational Corporations are taking over the supplies and recourses that were once considered a public trust. Of particular interest is the privatization of water resources. The World Bank has forced many third world nations to sell of their water rights to private companies to receive loans. Even many U.S. cities have privatized their water resources. Corporations have a minimum return on investment that they must meet for all business that they conduct. To meet their profit margins corporations have to raise prices, control competition, and cut costs. In regards to public resources, such as water, corporations raise the prices to cover infrastructure costs. They take control of public water sources such as rivers, stream, and in some have the power to regulate the storage of rain water. To cut costs corporations reduce the water quality, decrease maintenance schedules and reduce man power. In most instances the privatization of water has led to poor water quality, high cost, and mismanagement of resources as evidenced by Bechtel’s takeover of the Bolivian water supply. Most natural resources need to be converted back into public trusts where municipalities can properly manage the systems. Therefore the primary stakeholders and consumers are in charge of the sustainability and maintenance of the system.

**What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?** The most compelling parts of the films were when the film makers attempted to connect corporate C.E.O.’s and owners to their products or to issues of environmental sustainability or social justice. The C.E.O. of Shell talked about how he was as concerned about global warming and workers rights as the activists that were protesting against him, yet a month later Shell expanded drilling in Nigeria. Another example is from when Michael Moore asked the C.E.O. of Nike to travel with him to Indonesia to observe the factories where the shoes where being made. The C.E.O had never been to the factories where the products were made and he appeared to have little knowledge about the process in the factories. He may have expressed some concerned verbally, but he also appeared extremely hesitant to find out about what really happens in the factories. These examples demonstrated to me just how big of a large disconnect there is between the leaders of corporations and the stakeholders in their business practices. They appear to be good people that are simply ignorant of the correlation to their position of power and influence and the actions and effects of the company’s business practices.

**What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?** The film seemed to convey the message that all corporations are bad and that even the corporate responsibility that corporations hype up are just a ploy to keep up appearances. I am not convinced that all corporations are bad and that the very nature of a corporation is bad. I think that it would have been a worthwhile study to investigate why there is such a large disconnect between corporate leadership and stakeholders. It would also have been good to see what types of good corporations there are such as social entrepreneurial corporations or corporations whose purpose is to create sustainable products.

**What audiences does the film best address? Why?** This film best addresses people who are already skeptical of corporations. It provides details and information that will help to solidify those skepticisms and allow them to formulate an argument with specific examples. Those who are not skeptical of corporations will probably reject this movie because they believe in the purity of the corporation. They will still prefer to look at the good that corporations provide as opposed to the harm they cause to the environment and to human health. I think that this would be a great movie for those who were directly affected by the Gulf Oil Spill to watch.

**What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?** A nice addition to the film would have been data on how influential corporations are in relations to governments. Who controls the more money and how is that money used. It would also have been interesting to develop a scenario in which the corporation did not exist or existed in some other limited form.

**What kinds of actions 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 suggested that citizens and municipalities hold corporations accountable and that they take the responsibility of weighing the benefits and consequences of a corporation’s presence in their municipalities. Citizens in a California town banned the construction of any new fast food restaurants within their town. The U.S. legal system gives the courts the right to revoke the charters of corporations and force them to sell off their assets. The film suggests that the courts begin to exercise this right and revoke the charters of corporations that are in violation of regulations or that pose a significant threat to the environment or public health.

**What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?** This film was an inspiration for my matrix1 presentation on SLAPP suits . It also spurred me to research more of the history behind the Cochabama protests of 2000 in Boliva over Bechtel’s control over the municipal water supply. I looked into the causes and the effects of Bechtel’s ownership of the water supply<[]>.