Some random thoughts on corporate culture / corporatism (~900 words, 4 - 6 min. read)

I have just listened to a video of former US Secretary of Labor Robert  Reich’s full testimony to the US Senate Budget Committee “regarding corporate profits and inflation” (I couldn’t find the date of this). In that, Mr Reich criticised US corporate actions regarding prices and repurchasing shares, and mentions corporate culture a few times.

The focus of Mr Reich’s presentation was on the possible adverse impacts of corporations on consumers, but the issue of the impact of corporate culture on workers was also recently illustrated by the competing comments between two billionaires, with the American billionaire wanting workers back in the office (and making offensive aspersions about people not working when at home) whereas the Australian billionaire offered jobs to the former’s employees on a WFH basis - which has actually been shown to improve productivity and quality of life as compared to cubicle farms.

So what is going to be needed to change possible adverse impacts of corporations on consumers?

Well, for a start, I suggest that people consider cutting down their spending on products made by corporations, in favour of local, probably higher priced, possibly lower quality, products.

The reason people buy products from corporations is not only marketing: my first PC was built by someone locally, but using components that came out of corporate factories. Now, for convenience AND A WARRANTY I use commercial (made in a corporate factory) laptops. For convenience, a warranty & insurance, and SAFETY, I have a corporate made car.

On the other hand, I could use open source software on my laptop (I have, on previous PCs), but collaborating on files where other PCs are using other software packages can then become a problem. I have an excellent mechanic to do work on my car, but the extent of that work can be limited by corporate limitations designed to protect their copyright (my home state has legislated that car manufacturers must make programming accessible).

In those cases, right-to-repair legislation probably represents, in my opinion, a reasonable way to mediate the balance between the point at which a corporation considers it worth pursuing the development of an invention/innovation/idea, and the reasonable expectations of consumers to not be beholden to corporations in way that remove competition.

If we consider developing pharmaceuticals, there are development costs and work that I am of the opinion that governments should be undertaking (and making available on a not for profit basis); as they’re not, corporations step in to the gap - and I am the beneficiary of such work.

Where I become concerned, is when government policies results in access to those products - both within the nation of origin and to less wealthy nations - becoming unfair. The USA’s notorious health system is an example of that, but other nations have their  problems as well.

The pragmatic solution may be for governments to start saying “in the interests of human decency, we’ll start subsidising sales / buying and making medicines available” - as was partly done during the pandemic.

This is where citizens come in, as governments will eventually respond to pressure - especially at the ballot box.

Corporations also respond to consumer pressure - mainly, what is bought and what isn’t. They’ve said so, often enough, and that is why I never used to buy conservative / trashy tabloids (back in the pre-Internet days), which others used to do to “know what the bigots are saying”. From the corporations point of view, EVERY SALE is a sign of approval.

Being a tourist to a despotic nation is too often taken by those despots as a sign of approval, which is why I consider people should think carefully about such consumerism.

What this means is that one of the most important, and underacknowledged, actions of consumer activism is restraint - specifically, refrain from putting money into something you disapprove of, if you can.

That is not always possible – note the examples above, but that is where voter pressure on governments comes in to play.

There is a place for positive activism as well, not only to put pressure on governments, but campaigns aimed at getting corporations to address climate crisis responsibility, human rights and social responsibility, and treating workers better.

The Australian billionaire’s comments were an example of positive activism on the latter topic.

Companies may also respond to reasonable, well-reasoned communication from informed members of the public (aggressive, angry rants often just force “good” people into being defensive, and feed the animosity of any “bad” people – but there is a time and place for protest actions, and the apartheid era was an example of that).

Such pressures have led to things like corporate social responsibility (less of a tick box exercise than some think, not as perfect as others think), certification of social licence, and, in some cases, companies being ahead of governments on things like diversity and inclusion.

Shareholders being activists on these issues is important – especially when selecting senior managers, as it is vital to ensure they are decent human beings first and foremost.

There is a legal fiction that a corporation is the equivalent of an individual. A corporation is, however, made up of many humans – individuals, responding to life pressures such as paying the rent and buying food.

When corporate culture looks after those people well, they are more productive and have a better quality of life.

In turn, that corporate culture is amenable to human influence – both from within the companies, and without.