[QatzelOk]

Published on Friday, November 30, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Corporate Citizenship–Oxymoron or Necessity
by Robert C. Hinkley

“America, America
God mend thine every flaw
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.”– America the Beautiful, Second verse

A little less than ten years ago, I had lunch with a friend and university professor. He was trying to get the CEOs of big companies to promote human rights in the workplace for their Asian subsidiaries. He asked me, “Why is it that when I speak to these guys, they don’t seem interested? It’s not that they are against it. They just don’t think it’s relevant.”

As a corporate lawyer, the answer to this question was simple. His question, however, made me realize how much damage gets done by big corporations to human rights, the environment and other elements of the public interest without the law ever being violated. As a citizen, this concerned me. As a corporate lawyer, I realized what caused the problem and how to make it stop.

Compliance, corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship are three types of corporate behavior. They can be viewed as occurring on a spectrum. At one end is compliance, doing what is necessary to obey the law. In the middle, is corporate social responsibility (CSR). Here companies engage in various acts that go beyond mere compliance and in some way benefit the public interest. Corporate citizenship goes beyond compliance and CSR. It involves a culture which results in behavior that, while pursuing the creation of shareholder value, always aims to protect the public interest as well. Under this definition, many say that corporate citizenship is today an oxymoron.

...

The ability of the liberal democracy to protect the public interest is based on two assumptions:

First, it is not possible to inflict too much damage on the environment and other elements of the public interest before the behavior that causes the damage will be recognized and a new law prohibiting this behavior will be passed.

Secondly, those who are found to be behaving badly causing harm to the public interest will not continue their behavior once their involvement is exposed. They also will not get in the way of new legislation prohibiting the offending behavior in the future.

These assumptions were probably valid in the late 18th century when the liberal democracy was first conceived. In a society made up of mostly subsistence farmers and shopkeepers, individuals had little ability to do serious harm to the public interest. When they did, their conscience, shame, concern for the their reputation and public spiritedness of the times kept them from continuing their bad behavior and from trying to influence the government to delay or not pass laws that would prohibit them from behaving badly again. In other words, their “citizenship” intervened to safeguard the public interest just as the founders predicted it would. Without this citizenship, liberal democracy does not work because government cannot protect the public interest...

rest of article

A great article about the need for corporate citizenship.

[Mikolaj]

Corporations don't have citizens, they have subjects. The the feudal pyramid hierarchy of our day!

[QatzelOk]

Corporations don't have citizens, they have subjects.

The article is about how corporations need to be made into citizens through changing their charters to force them to support the public good.

The corporate law should be amended to change the duty of directors by adding 28 words that will protect five particular elements of the public interest. These words are:

“…but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public health and safety, dignity of employees or the welfare of the communities in which the corporation operates.”

[Noelnada]

Corporate citizenship = Global citizenship ?

Like a new form of feudal system but in a global and modern sense, the great master of the greatest lodge of the greatest and richest secret society decide what is permitted and what is forbidden, any people going against his will is coldly assassinated and replaced instantly.

Hmm wait that already exist no ?

I will be that ruler if my peers accept me

(vote for me at you local lodge thanks)

[QatzelOk]

Noelnada, thanks for commenting on what you think that thread title might mean.

If you skim the article, you will realize that your comments were cute, but have nothing to do with the subject.

Some of the articles that are posted here on PoFo are really interesting and thought provoking.

Some of the comments are as well, but not when they show no relation to the subject of the thread.

[Noelnada]

Have you ever read anything posted on this board? Some of the articles are more interesting than your feedback even.

I never doubted the articles were more interesting than my feedbacks.

But well you know,for me this one feels like reading that a butcher wants to have animal rights protected more strongly.

It's not really that i don't understand the article at all, but i don't really grasp a practical point or not really understand the ideas behind the corporate citizenship concept.

How do you instaure a corporate citizenship ?

Are not unions already supposed to play that role ?

Why would we need a corporate citizenship, does that mean that citizenship don't exist anymore ?

Having a corporate citizenship for corporate employees different than citizenship for non-employees ?

Edit:(post the whole article next time)
Ok i read the entire article, i see now what is the point, in my opinion it is the role of the government to legiferate over corporations duties and rights and it is the role of citizens to tell the government what to do.

The corporate law should be amended to change the duty of directors by adding 28 words that will protect five particular elements of the public interest. These words are:

“…but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public health and safety, dignity of employees or the welfare of the communities in which the corporation operates.”

Since the behavior of corporation is to seek profits in the short-term to survive on the long-term and the role of the government to protect long-term collective interests.

There is a kind of contradiction that only the real engaged citizen can help to solve.

[QatzelOk]

Like I said, Noel, read the article or post somewhere in Gorkiy.

You are asking questions that only prove that you have written more than you have read.

[Noelnada]

Like I said, Noel, read the article or post somewhere in Gorkiy.

You are asking questions that only prove that you have written more than you have read.

Read my edit and stop complaining and think for yourself answering my questions not with the article.

[QatzelOk]

For the people that simply don't have time to read articles...

the author is suggesting that nations rewrite their corporate charters so that they include a clause about social responsibility.

The exact clause (I extracted it in one of my earlier posts) is in the article and in that post of mine third from the top.

Read it and comment on it. It is a proposal for a solution to corporate malfaisance.

[Noelnada]

Read it and comment on it. It is a proposal for a solution to corporate malfaisance.

I told you my position on it, it is not a solution in itself, it is a proposition, i said that only the citizens have the power to make the governments make this kind of proposition effective and real. Actually a lot of different laws already force the government to control that corporations don't run at the expense of the environment, human rights, public health and safety, dignity of employees or the welfare of the communities in which the corporation operates

Why nobody never read me, or why nobody never understand me :'(

So why should we displace the government responsibility upon corporations actually ?

And how could the corporations respect themselves what they are already supposed to do without an external citizen or government control?

Come on the text you linked is not an good answer to corporate malevolence (in my opinion).

[QatzelOk]

Why nobody never read me, or why nobody never understand me :'(

Because you write in an ironic and vague way in your second language.

only the citizens have the power to make the governments make this kind of proposition effective and real

This is true. But before the people can vote for this kind of change, it has to be proposed by someone who gets elected.

This is a solid proposition which I endorse. Now which political parties are likely to pick it up as part of their platform? Certainly not the corporate-funded ones...