Ad fontes !!! To the sources!!!

Common sense has been called back – if we want to debate over the corporation, corporate social responsibilities, building a reputation, corporation’s influence on media, organizations, workers’ unions, individuals etc we need to be equipped with the ‘appropriate tools’. So instead of presuming that everyone is familiar with the right terminology, I will support my blog with some theory in form of the Canadian movie The Corporation directed by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbar and Joel Bakan available online on YouTube (movie clips are placed down on right site of my blog under 'Video Bar')

Corporation – an interesting creation of the contemporaneity. Is it necessary in present world?

As it has been said in the attached clip, people are likely to perceive a corporation as a real person with attitude such as friendly, nice, caring etc. However in this lovely but a bit naive description major thing seems to be forgotten – the profit. With regards to business, isn’t it a principle? Big names – Shell, Nike, Gap – pose as the supportive members of society stricken with mission of pleasing the whole world or maybe they rather accompany the society identifying its needs and moods like for example pro-social, anti-smoking, pro-environmental and doing what they can do the best – selling a product and encouraging people to purchase.

Selling products, selling services .... selling yourself?

But if consumerism is not the right and the only-one way of life? If selling and purchasing harm people, animals, biosphere? If in mixture of profit-power game, corporations injure own workers or the fate of future generations? How about the god's footstool – Earth, biosphere, animals?

Authors of The Corporations skillfully focus a viewer’s attention on these issues. They raise a question of low-cost labour. Citizens of the Third World countries are explored to manufacture Nike or Gap clothes, Cathy’s handbags or other super-trendy designer’s accessories. ‘Wealthy’ residents of developed part world pay free-market prices, while the actual builder/creator gets ‘dog’- meat’ because what is the other expression for 0.3 per cent of its retail price?

Critics would argue that it is kind of unwritten law of the free market. The only thing that might attract investors in the poorest countries is ‘low-cost labour’. People forced to work for this ridiculous money, still prefer to work and get paid than not to get paid and starve.

But hang on a minute, where is the equivalent amount of 97,7 per cent of retail price?

Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbar and Joel Bakan consider also the problem of the possible harm of the biosphere. Animals, plants, human beings, water, air, soil are only a few elements of the biosphere that are effected with the corporate activities. A picture of earth exploration shows air-, water- and soil- pollution; in the era of productivity animals are stuffed with drugs to increase results, people are infected with civilization diseases such as cancer or HIV. Scary...