Strategic CSR - Rights + responsibilities

Over the years, I have read many articles arguing that legal rights should be granted to animals and other natural entities, like rivers (e.g., see Strategic CSR – Personhood and Strategic CSR – Cats and dogs). The article in the url below is merely the most recent of those articles but, very usefully, it references the original source for such arguments (in the U.S., at least):

"The notion that 'natural objects' like woods and streams should have rights was first put forward half a century ago, by Christopher Stone, a law professor at the University of Southern California."

The logic advocates use to support their claims vary to some degree, but almost all, at some point, make this point:

"In April, 1972, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision against the Sierra Club, by a vote of four to three. (Two seats on the Court were vacant.) Douglas, drawing heavily on Stone's article, penned a dissenting opinion. 'A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes,' he wrote. A corporation, too, 'is a person for purposes of the adjudicatory processes. . . . So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life.'"

In essence, 'if corporations can be persons and they are unable to talk (and do other people-like things), then other things that are unable to talk should also be persons.' In other words:

"The objection that streams and forests cannot have standing because streams and forests cannot speak was, in Stone's view, easily addressed. 'Corporations cannot speak either,' he observed. 'Nor can states, estates, infants, incompetents, municipalities or universities.' And yet these entities were amply represented—some might say overrepresented—in the courts."

But, as many CSR advocates also like to argue, with rights come responsibilities. And, one of the many advantages of granting personhood to corporations (and it really is the foundational pillar of our economic system, post industrial revolution, primarily because it permits limited liability) is that, although corporations can sue others, as persons they can also be sued themselves.

To me, this seems like a major argument against granting legal rights to animals and elements of the natural environment. If I am currently out walking my dog and it bites someone else, the victim does not sue the dog, they sue me. There would not be much point suing the dog, since the dog does not own any assets from which compensation could be paid. Equally, if I go swimming in a river and drown due to the strong currents (which would be the river's fault, now that we are assigning rights to it), then it is not much use to me (or my estate) to sue the river. The enforcement of contracts is not everything in our economic/legal/societal system, but it is a hell of a lot.

So, while there are increasing numbers of cases where advocates act on behalf of animals and the natural environment to sue for legal standing (most recently here in the U.S., Happy the elephant), I think this would create more problems than it solves. Again, pursuing the argument that responsibilities are the flipside of rights, I think we need to solve how we are going to assign responsibilities to these actors before we rush to grant them rights (especially because, in general, they have no discernible interests that we can understand or meet).

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

A Lake in Florida is Suing to Protect Itself

By Elizabeth Kolbert

April 11, 2022

The New Yorker

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/18/a-lake-in-florida-suing-to-protect-itself

 

Strategic CSR - Obituaries

I generally do not spend much time with the obituaries in The New York Times, although I know they are well-written and researched. I do tend to read The Economist's obituary, since they only publish one a week (and, like everything The Economist does, it usually has an interesting twist), but it is not a particular area of interest – something about looking forward, rather than back, I suspect. Anyway, the obituary in the url below caught my interest because it covers a number of issues that I care about (art as social commentary, the SCOTUS, constitutional law and, in particular here in the U.S., the death penalty):

"Six tacos, six glazed doughnuts and a Cherry Coke: That was the last meal of a man executed in Oklahoma in July 1999. Rendered in cobalt blue glaze on a white china plate the next year, it was the first in Julie Green's decades-long art project, 'The Last Supper,' which documented the final meals of death row prisoners around the country."

The motivation for Green doing what she did (and devoting her life to it), I think, is both noble and a searing commentary on this particular U.S. institution:

"To Professor Green, who taught art at Oregon State University, their choices put a human face on an inhumane practice. Some requests were elaborate: fried sac-a-lait fish (otherwise known as white perch or crappie, it's the state fish of Louisiana) topped with crawfish étouffée. And some were starkly mundane: two peanut butter cups and a Dr Pepper."

Green also had a clear goal in mind:

"She planned to paint the meals until capital punishment was abolished, or until she had made 1,000 plates, whichever came first. In September, she painted her 1,000th plate, an oval platter with a single familiar image: the bottle of Coca-Cola requested by a Texas man in 1997."

Ironically given the subject matter of her work, her death was a controlled intervention:

"She died a few weeks later, on Oct. 12, at her home in Corvallis, Ore., by physician-assisted suicide, which is permitted under Oregon's Death With Dignity Act."

For Green, the subject of her work, food, was central to the point of what she was doing:

"Professor Green was teaching at the University of Oklahoma when she read the details of a recently executed man's final meal in a local paper, The Norman Transcript. The menu's homeyness — those glazed doughnuts — and its specificity made her think of all the meals she had prepared and shared with her family. The man had committed a horrific crime, but his food preferences humanized him. 'I'm a food person,' she told The New York Times in 2013. 'I grew up with great cooks and great food. Food has always been a celebratory thing for me. That's part of why this whole thing is interesting to me, because of the contrast. It's not a celebration.'"

Part of her intention is to highlight the contrast in approaches across states to this relatively humane gesture that is part of such an inhumane process:

"Texas, which has executed more prisoners than any other state in the country (573 since 1976, including three men this year), no longer allows special meal requests; its menus are drawn from standard prison fare. But not all states are so rigid. In 2001 in Indiana, a prison granted an inmate's request to have his mother make him chicken dumplings in the institution's kitchen. Professor Green painted the word 'Mother' on the platter that pays homage to that meal. Another Indiana inmate told prison officials that he'd never had a birthday cake, so they ordered him one, along with the pizza he had requested, which he shared with 15 family members and friends in 2007. Professor Green painted a cake that bristles with candles."

In addition, she saw her work as an extension of the reason last suppers are published – to create a formal record of an act that is sanctioned by the state. And, of course because she was painting food, the canvas should be a plate:

"In 1917, a Montana man asked only for an apple. 'I have a bad taste in my mouth,' he was reported as saying. In Mississippi in 1947, two Black teenagers asked for fried chicken and watermelon before they went to the electric chair. Professor Green painted one ornate platter for each boy."

The photo in the article shows some of the hundreds of plates that Green painted. The description attached is pertinent:

"Julie Green in 2013 with some of the hundreds of plates on which she painted death row inmates' last meals. 'Andy Warhol said in the future the artist will just point,' she said. 'I paint to point.'"

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Julie Green, 60, Artist who Memoralized Inmates' Last Suppers, Dies

By Penelope Green

November 8, 2021

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

D7

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/05/arts/julie-green-dead.html

Strategic CSR - SCOTUS

The two newsletters for this week will focus on issues related to religion that, according to the latest Gallup poll, here in the U.S. is becoming less important in people's everyday lives. The article in the url below, however, suggests that this trend may not apply to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). The article makes its case by summarizing an academic study showing how the Court is increasingly siding with organized religion (in particular, "mainstream Christian organizations") in the cases it decides:

"The study, to be published in The Supreme Court Review, documented a 35-percentage-point increase in the rate of rulings in favor of religion in orally argued cases, culminating in an 81 percent success rate in the court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr."

Specifically, placing this claim in its historical context:

"The court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, from 1953 to 1969, supported religion just 46 percent of the time. That grew to 51 percent under Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, from 1969 to 1986; then to 58 percent under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, from 1986 to 2005; and finally jumped to just over 81 percent under Chief Justice Roberts, who joined the court in 2005."

The study also notes that it is not only the frequency with which religious causes are supported that has changed, but also the nature of the groups that benefit from the Court's decisions:

"In the Warren court, all of the rulings in favor of religion benefited minority or dissenting practitioners. In the Roberts court, most of the religious claims were brought by mainstream Christians."

Perhaps not surprisingly, the study also notes the ideological nature of the shift, which it claims has been driven by the five Justices appointed by Republican presidents:

"The five most pro-religion justices all sit on the current court, the study found. 'The justices who are largely responsible for this shift are Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh,' the study's authors wrote. 'While there are some differences among these justices, and Kavanaugh has been involved in only a handful cases, they are clearly the most pro-religion justices on the Supreme Court going back at least until World War II.'"

And also that a similar shift has taken place in lower-level courts, in particular among the federal judiciary – a finding summarized in a second study that is also summarized in the article:

"In the five years through the end of 2020, [the study's author] wrote, federal judges' partisan affiliations had become powerfully correlated to their votes. 'And when the pandemic struck, resulting in widespread lockdowns of religious houses of worship,' he wrote, 'the unprecedented number of constitutional free exercise cases brought in such a condensed span of time forced that partisanship into sharp relief.' Even putting aside cases concerning the pandemic, a big partisan gap has opened in free exercise cases."

The courts have also used their ideological advantage to expand the application of the religion clauses of the constitution to more contemporary issues:

"More generally, claims of religious freedom, brought mostly by Christian groups, have increasingly been used to try to limit progressive measures like the protection of transgender rights and access to contraception. On top of that, a culture war erupted about how best to address the coronavirus."

The accusation by Justice Elena Kagan in a 2018 decision that "the court's conservative majority [is] 'weaponizing the First Amendment'" (see also Strategic CSR – The Rights of Corporations), seems to suggest we should expect more such polarizing decisions by the Court:

"'Just as the majority has weaponized free speech in service of business and conservative interests,' [Justice Kagen] said, 'it's using the religion clauses to privilege mostly mainstream religious organizations.'"

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

An Extraordinary Winning Streak for Religion at the Supreme Court

By Adam Liptak

April 6, 2021

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

A14

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/us/politics/supreme-court-religion.html

 

Strategic CSR - Revlon

The article in the url below dives pretty deep into the weeds of U.S. corporate law, but it is potentially an important step in the direction of tighter corporate governance (increasing the burdens placed on a firm's board of directors) and against one of the few remaining 'rights' that shareholders possess. Specifically, the article covers a recent decision in U.S. federal court:

"In a little-noticed December ruling in a case involving a failed 2014 leveraged buyout, Jed S. Rakoff, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, threw some sand into the otherwise well-lubricated gears of what has been a 40-year financial bonanza. It's about time we started asking tough questions about the ramifications of loading up companies with huge amounts of debt they will surely have difficulty repaying."

Specifically, because the board's decision to sell the company knowingly placed the firm with a debt load that was likely to force it into bankruptcy, the judge held that the board had been "reckless" in its decision and are therefore liable:

"In other words, Judge Rakoff said in his ruling, officers and directors had better think twice before agreeing to sell a company to a buyout firm. What had for decades been considered a virtue — selling a company for a market-clearing price to the benefit of existing shareholders — might have become a vice. Judge Rakoff's decision 'has the potential of really blowing up,' said Brian Quinn, a law professor at Boston College."

The facts of the case, in the opinion of the judge, mean that the directors are not protected by the business judgment rule:

"Judge Rakoff … said [the board] could not take cover behind the business judgment rule, which usually protects directors from being held accountable for past business decisions so long as they were made in 'good faith.'"

The author of the article, who was a former investment banker (specializing in M&A), argues that this case has implications beyond the specific facts (in spite of idiosyncrasies that suggest it might have limited influence) because it challenges the long-held 1986 decision by the Delaware Supreme Court known as 'Revlon.' Revlon applies as precedent during the sale of a firm and is important because it establishes the burden on directors during the sale to seek the highest price possible for shareholders, irrespective of the wishes of other stakeholders in the firm. This recent decision suggests this may no longer be the case:

"The ruling has the potential to hold accountable those responsible for allowing otherwise solvent companies to be sold into circumstances that would soon enough cause their bankruptcy. … In the wake of Judge Rakoff's ruling, Big Law quickly sought to warn clients that officers and directors of companies needed to be more vigilant about who they agree to sell a company to and what the buyer plans to do with it. The days of just selling a company to the highest bidder regardless of the consequences — the legal standard on Wall Street since the Delaware Supreme Court decided the so-called Revlon case in 1986 — might just be over."

If so, then this case would be another nail in the coffin of the idea that 'shareholder democracy' has any substantive meaning in the U.S.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

The End of Private Equity

By William D. Cohan

March 1, 2021

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

A19

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/28/opinion/business-economics/private-equity-reckoning.html

Strategic CSR - Walmart

Just when you think Walmart is making strides in relation to CSR broadly defined, the article in the url below reminds us that, beyond seeing sustainability as a means to decrease costs, the firm has a way to go before it incorporates a CSR perspective throughout all aspects of operations (Chapter 3, p53). In a policy statement released in September:

“Wal-Mart said it planned to source a total of $20 billion in products from women-owned businesses in the United States over the next five years, which works out to an average of $4 billion a year, versus the $2.5 billion a year it currently spends, and to double what it buys from women-owned businesses globally by 2016. The company said it would also support training of women in factories and farms that are Wal-Mart suppliers, donate $100 million to causes supporting women’s economic development, and ask its vendors and services firms like ad agencies or public relations firms to increase gender and minority representation on their Wal-Mart accounts.”

As Leslie A. Dach, executive vice-president for corporate affairs at Walmart, explains:

“‘If you look at retail, the vast majority of our customers are women, and if you look at Wal-Mart, the majority of our associates are women. ... It makes complete sense for us to really have a focus on how we have the best associates we can, how we help women suppliers succeed and how we engage our communities.’”

But, if this approach ‘makes so much sense,’ why did Walmart wait until it faced the possibility of crippling class-action litigation (and, now, individual claims stemming from the failed attempt to group all female employees of the firm as a ‘class’) before considering its introduction? In addition, why limit the commitment to such a small percentage of Walmart’s overall procurement budget?

“The $4 billion a year, on average, that Wal-Mart will spend sourcing from women in the United States works out to about 5 percent of the company’s annual operating expenses.”

In response, Walmart stated that the new policy announcement “was not in reaction to the class-action suit against Wal-Mart, which charged unfair treatment of women in the workplace.” The court ruling was decided on June 20, 2011 and Walmart’s new policy announcement was released on September 14, 2011.

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Wal-Mart to Announce Women-friendly Plans

By Stephanie Clifford and Stephanie Strom

The New York Times

September 14, 2011

pB3

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/business/wal-mart-to-announce-women-friendly-plans.html

Strategic CSR - Walmart (I)

In case you missed it over the summer, the article in the url below reports the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Walmart discrimination case that the firm has been fighting for the past decade:

“The Supreme Court on Monday threw out an enormous employment discrimination class-action suit against Wal-Mart that had sought billions of dollars on behalf of as many as 1.5 million female workers. The suit claimed that Wal-Mart’s policies and practices had led to countless discriminatory decisions over pay and promotions.”

While not deciding the merits of the case (i.e., whether Walmart actually discriminated against some of its female employees in terms of equal pay and promotion opportunities), the Court decided that the case cannot proceed as a class action. Essentially, this means that, in the eyes of the Court, there was insufficient evidence that Walmart had pursued a systematic policy of discrimination, centrally coordinated.

Walmart’s defense against the class-action was that, because it devolved most hiring and promotion decisions to the local store manager, although individual instances of discrimination may have occurred, they were not a result of the firm’s policies and practices.

Additional background to the case and its possible implications (both for Walmart and for the possibility of future class-actions being brought against all firms) appeared in two additional stories in the paper on the same day:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/business/21class.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/business/21walmart.html

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Class-Action Bias Case

By Adam Liptak

June 21, 2011

The New York Times

Late Edition - Final

A1

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/business/21bizcourt.html

Strategic CSR - Corporate Rights

I have always been interested in constitutional law and the immense impact of the Supreme Court on day-to-day life in the U.S. Clearly, appointing a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most important powers a U.S. President has because the effects last well beyond their time in office and affect society so broadly. While the Supreme Court is a highly influential and important branch of government, however, it doesn’t mean it is efficient or, at times, even logical. However much it likes to ignore the reality, it is as political an institution (subject to the same biases, emotions, and inertial forces) as the other branches of government. In particular, I am struck by the inconsistencies of the judicial logic used to rationalize particular decisions and, presumably, win majority support among the Justices for different positions in different cases under different clauses of the constitution.

These thoughts were prompted by a Supreme Court decision that was announced earlier this week in a case that focused on corporations’ right to privacy:

“… the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that corporations have no personal privacy rights for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.”

While I find the intricacies of the arguments fascinating, and also agree with this decision, I cannot understand why the same arguments weren’t used to deny corporations the right to free speech in the controversial Citizens United decision in January last year that removed limits on firms’ donations to political campaigns.

I disagreed with the Citizens United decision because, although consistent with the legal definition of a corporation as an individual, it does untold damage to the sanctity of the political process (and, for the same reason, I think other organizations, such as unions, should also be banned from making donations). If the Court is going to decide that a firm has the right to free speech, however, surely it must decide that firms also have other rights that we attribute to individuals, such as the right to privacy. 

Instead, we get a convoluted semantic argument by Chief Justice Roberts (who wrote the majority opinion), detailed in the article in the url below. Roberts’ opinion, which “relied as much on dictionaries, grammar and usage as it did on legal analysis,” debated the meaning of the word “personal” as a noun versus an adjective to justify a decision that appears to be inconsistent with recent precedent:

“''Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns,'' he wrote, ''but not always.'' He gave examples. ''The noun 'crab' refers variously to a crustacean and a type of apple, while the related adjective 'crabbed' can refer to handwriting that is 'difficult to read,' '' he wrote, quoting a dictionary. '' 'Corny,''' he went on, ''has little to do with 'corn.' ''”

???????

Have a good weekend.

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment (2e)

© Sage Publications, 2011

http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr2e/

Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Justices' Ruling Is Wrapped in an English Lesson

By ADAM LIPTAK

781 words

2 March 2011

The New York Times

Late Edition - Final

15

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02scotus.html

Strategic CSR - The Rights of Corporations

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided an important case on the free speech rights of corporations. This topic was discussed in a CSR Newsletter about the case last October, which featured the objections of the NYT to the proposed changes (copied below).

Like most rules or laws, there is the theory (which may be defendable) and the reality (which may be subject to abuse). This decision by the Court seems to fall under these concerns.

The article in the url below is an NYT editorial castigating last week’s decision that allows corporations greater freedom to finance political ads/campaigns (for more background, see these related news articles that appeared in the NYT on the same day: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html). The NYT editors are not happy, to say the least:

“With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.”

The core of the issue centers on whether corporations enjoy the same first amendment rights to free speech protection as individuals. Although the majority in the decision used well-established Supreme Court precedent to claim that they do, it is harder to understand why the decision to treat corporations as individuals was made in the first place:

“The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence. The Constitution they wrote mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections -- the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations.”

The NYT characterizes the Supreme Court’s decision to accept the case and use “a narrower, technical question” and to elevate it “to a forum for striking down the entire ban on corporate spending” as “shameless judicial overreaching.” In short:

“The majority is deeply wrong on the law. … It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.”

The consequences of the decision are projected to alter the face of political campaigns, increasing the numbers of attack ads and favoring those candidates that support corporations. The NYT accuses the “conservative majority” on the Court of having:

“… distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.”

The editorial does not mince its words in calling for a legislative response. However:

“The real solution lies in getting the court's ruling overturned. The four dissenters made an eloquent case for why the decision was wrong on the law and dangerous. With one more vote, they could rescue democracy.”

For a calmer perspective on what corporations can and cannot do in relation to political ad spending as a result of the decision, and an argument that the consequences of the Court’s decision will not be as momentous as the NYT editorial implies, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26baran.html:

“As the court noted, 26 states and the District of Columbia already permit independent corporate and union campaign spending. There have been no stampedes in those states’ elections. Having a constitutional right is not the same as requiring one to exercise it, and there are many reasons businesses and unions may not spend much more on politics than they already do.”

Take care
David

Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
(c) Sage Publications, 2006
http://www.sagepub.com/Werther/

The Court's Blow to Democracy
836 words
22 January 2010
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
30
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html

From: David Chandler {msbbe096}
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:16 AM
Subject: Strategic CSR - The Rights of Corporations

The article in the url below is a recent editorial in the NYT that discusses “the rights of corporations” in relation to a case the U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing:

“… the court is considering what should be a fairly narrow campaign finance case, involving whether Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had the right to air a slashing movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic primary season.”

Instead of deciding the case in terms of this narrow point of law, however, the Court decided to expand its consideration to include broader implications under the legal doctrine of “corporate personhood”:

“The courts have long treated corporations as persons in limited ways for some legal purposes. They may own property and have limited rights to free speech. They can sue and be sued. They have the right to enter into contracts and advertise their products. But corporations cannot and should not be allowed to vote, run for office or bear arms. Since 1907, Congress has banned them from contributing to federal political campaigns -- a ban the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld.”

It would be interesting to see an editorial from the WSJ on the same case to see an alternative perspective (for an op-ed piece, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574393250083568972.html), but it is clear that the NYT does not think the Court’s current view of corporate rights should be expanded. The NYT also thinks a narrow interpretation of a corporation’s rights represents a purer reflection of the original intent of the Constitution:

“John Marshall, the nation's greatest chief justice, saw a corporation as ''an artificial being, invisible, intangible,'' he wrote in 1819. ''Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.''”

In particular, there are strong arguments to be made that corporations are not the same as individuals in their ability to amass resources that can then be used to distort the political debate. As such, the editorial argues that, in areas of political speech in particular, the Court should be wary of expanding corporations’ Constitutional rights to allow these kinds of polemical statements to be made.

Take care
David

Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
http://www.sagepub.com/Werther/

The Rights of Corporations
623 words
22 September 2009
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
30
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22tue1.html

For an article that highlights the broader implications of a change in the campaign finance law regarding corporations, see: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/09-11

Strategic CSR - The Rights of Corporations

The article in the url below is a recent editorial in the NYT that discusses “the rights of corporations” in relation to a case the U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing:

“… the court is considering what should be a fairly narrow campaign finance case, involving whether Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had the right to air a slashing movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic primary season.”

Instead of deciding the case in terms of this narrow point of law, however, the Court decided to expand its consideration to include broader implications under the legal doctrine of “corporate personhood”:

“The courts have long treated corporations as persons in limited ways for some legal purposes. They may own property and have limited rights to free speech. They can sue and be sued. They have the right to enter into contracts and advertise their products. But corporations cannot and should not be allowed to vote, run for office or bear arms. Since 1907, Congress has banned them from contributing to federal political campaigns -- a ban the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld.”

It would be interesting to see an editorial from the WSJ on the same case to see an alternative perspective (for an op-ed piece, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574393250083568972.html), but it is clear that the NYT does not think the Court’s current view of corporate rights should be expanded. The NYT also thinks a narrow interpretation of a corporation’s rights represents a purer reflection of the original intent of the Constitution:

“John Marshall, the nation's greatest chief justice, saw a corporation as ''an artificial being, invisible, intangible,'' he wrote in 1819. ''Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.''”

In particular, there are strong arguments to be made that corporations are not the same as individuals in their ability to amass resources that can then be used to distort the political debate. As such, the editorial argues that, in areas of political speech in particular, the Court should be wary of expanding corporations’ Constitutional rights to allow these kinds of polemical statements to be made.

Take care

David

Bill Werther & David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility

© Sage Publications, 2006

http://www.sagepub.com/Werther/

The Rights of Corporations

Editorial
623 words

22 September 2009

The New York Times

Late Edition - Final

30

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22tue1.html

For an article that highlights the broader implications of a change in the campaign finance law regarding corporations, see: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/09-11

Strategic CSR - Apologies

The articles in the two urls below both deal with the issue of apologies by firms for actions that have not met stakeholder expectations (Issues: Stakeholder Relations, p138). The first article emphasizes that the internet and related communication technologies are forcing greater transparency and accountability among firms (Figure 3.4: Free Flow of Information, p56):

“As if being a successful CEO wasn't tough enough, now you may have to learn a new skill: the art of apologizing. The number of public C-level apologies is growing daily as Mattel's Robert Eckert, Ameritrade's Joe Moglia, Apple's Steve Jobs and JetBlue's David Neeleman join a very long list. … What's happening? Have business leaders suddenly abdicated control? Are financial expectations overtaking common sense and good business judgment? Or have corporations lost touch with their customers? "All of the above" could be one answer. But a more accurate explanation is that our world of instantaneous and ubiquitous communication has given customers more power to hold CEOs and companies accountable than ever before.”

The second article contains a number of anecdotes of firms apologizing well and many more of them doing it badly. Both articles detail the potential consequences for firms that fail to apologize quickly and genuinely:

“Business leaders have not always found apologising so easy. Here, timing is every bit as important as in politics - it's just that the time horizons are so much shorter. In the summer of 1999 Doug Ivester, then chief executive of Coca-Cola, waited over a week before apologising to Belgian customers for the contamination of his product that appeared to cause widespread sickness. While the company hesitated, Coca-Cola was being taken off the shelves in France and the Netherlands as well. In 1989, Exxon's response to the Valdez oil spill off Alaska was even worse: silence, followed by grudging acceptance and a Dollars 4.5bn fine.”

The issue of apologies and the potential positive consequences for firms that do it well and genuinely is worth keeping in mind as the U.S. Supreme Court re-visits the Exxon Valdez case today—an error of judgment that continues to generate negative headlines for Exxon (Special Cases of CSR: ExxonMobil, p292), almost two decades after the event.

Take care
Dave

Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
http://www.sagepub.com/Werther

Nothing Is Insignificant When It Comes to Brand Fulfillment
Go Beyond: In Every Single Way, Marketers Must Do More to Lock in Customer Loyalty
By Don Frischmann
January 21, 2008
http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=123169
The article is posted in full at:
http://yummythinking.com/tt/entry/Nothing-Is-Insignificant-When-It-Comes-to-Brand-Fulfillment

Say sorry and mean it - or don't say anything at all.
By STEFAN STERN
929 words
19 February 2008
Financial Times
USA Ed1
Page 13
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c87c596-de47-11dc-9de3-0000779fd2ac.html