Monday 19 February 2024

Corporations: where did it go wrong? [Note: Content Warning - discussion on, and links to, economic & political systems, inequity and environmental/other problems. Reader discretion is advised]

Note: CONTENT WARNING - some of this content is about upsetting, disturbing or triggering events & attitudes. Seek competent help - including professional - if you need it. For anyone distressed by anything in this post, or for any other reason considering seeking support, resources are available in Australia here, here, and here. In other nations, you will have to do an Internet search using terms such as mental health support - <your nation>(which, for instance, may lead to this, this, and this, in the USA, or this, this, and this, in France [biased towards English-language - my apologies]), or perhaps try https://www.befrienders.org/

The concept of corporations is not necessarily inherently bad ...

However, the reality of corporations in the late 20th and so far in the 21st century does include substantial problems and concerns - such as concerns about inequity, workplace conditions (especially where workforces are in developing  nations - and I have written a fair bit about workplace issues on this blog * ), health (e.g., the  tobacco  industry) and safety (e.g., the car  industry until second half of the 20th century), possible economic impacts - especially if they become too large (e.g., Enron, Lehman  Brothers, and Standard  Oil), environmental impacts (including things like air travel, but also how mining operations are conducted, and this), and resistance to action to address the climate crisis - certainly in the case of  the fossil  fuel industry

There are perceptions that corporations can stifle individuals (e.g., SLAPP) or endanger sovereignty (e.g., ISDS).

On the other hand, corporations are often ahead of government in terms of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), many are trying to do better through corporate  social  responsibility  programmes and things like B-Corp  registration, and incorporation provides benefits for clubs and associations.  

Also, the concept of legal  personhood for corporations (and this is an interesting possible extension) is now being applied to protect  places such as rivers.

In addition, in our capitalistic world (and whether the world should be capitalist is, in my opinion, up for debate - but it won’t change in the new few years at least, so I am comfortable writing and posting this article for now ...), it provides a means for companies to access funds so they can “do more” ... which is potentially subject to the concerns - and benefits - outlined above. 

But a lot of these issues are relatively recent - not all, especially with regard to the empires that were built for the sake of the profit of various East India companies (the  British, French, and Dutch come to mind quite easily - and I am currently reading “Revolusi: Indonesia and the Birth of the Modern World” by David  Van  Reybrouck [pub. Vintage Digital, 8 February 2024, ISBN 978-1-529-92091-8, Amazon] about the latter) and their very small numbers of shareholders. 

There is an assumption - mostly amongst politico-socio-economic elites and their sock puppet economists - that economic activity will have a benefit for society (basically through a trickle down effect, although that is rarely admitted - and the puppet economists may not be aware that such is what they are basing their opinions on)

The problem, as I wrote here, is that the assumption is not checked, or there is only a glib, superficial, for-the-form-of-it check. 

Ideological blindness is a problem. 

That concern also applies to the other side. 

It is possible for structures such as corporatisation/incorporation to aid small and/or ethical (including socially and environmentally) organisations as well. 

Again, the issue is ensuring that assumptions are checked ... and re-checked as circumstances change. 

And make sure that checking is not subverted by the rich and wealthy into a way of not taking necessary action ...

That includes making sure paid employment remains decent, rather than dragging employees down to a struggle to survive ... as I wrote about here.


Here are a few additional links for your consideration: 

 

Also: 


... and:


... and also: 


 

* Ill also add brief mention of a new one: workplace feedback for senior staff. When I reached more senior levels, there was quite a bit that I was doing which was good - mentoring, making technical, market & other recommendations, etc. However, in reviews that was too often reduced to meets expectations - which, while true in terms of expectations, was very demotivating and psychologically damaging. Or were we expected to just ... somehow internally “know” that we were doing excellent work, and that was supposed to be ... enough? Was this a stereotypical male thing? That same criticism was one I made of internal and industry awards: in many cases, it was doing the everyday consistently well that was of far greater benefit to the world than the flashy, glitzy, gizmo-laden latest.

 

Assumptions / basis 

In writing this, I have assumed / started from the following: 

  • this blog states quite clearly that it is about political and human rights matters, including lived experience of problems, and thus I will assume readers are reasonable people who have noted the content warning in the post header;

Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:

  • there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”; 
  • I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.

 

If they are of any use of interest, the activism information links from my former news posts are available in this post

 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.

Remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing, and all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering”.

Copyright © Kayleen White 2016-2024     NO AI   I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise  replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typos may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.     Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike basis   https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/  

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.