I’d probably try to see some kind of degrees. Mr. Y who heads up the Pollute Our Rivers plan is least moral, Mr. X is a bit better, Mr. LeavesTheCompanyInProtest is maybe a bit better, with Mr. Whistleblower being the hero. In terms of legal consequences, if I were handing out sentences, I’d probably want to throw a slightly less heavy book at Mr. X. But I dunno what the law has to say about that in real life.
No. Corporations are merely orgaization charts legitimazed by a governmental office.
IMHO the corporate structure is a way for its executives to avoid their moral responsibility to others.
Years ago the Ford Motor Company designed the Pinto with the fuel tank in a position so that when bumped from the rear it could catch fire. In solemn conclave the executives of the company decided that it would be cheaper for them to handle any lawsuits for resulting death or injurty than to change the design to correct the problem.
I don’t believe any of them would have so decided it they could be held personally liable for knowingly building an automobile that could kill or injure people. However, so deciding for the good of the corporation seems to have insulated them from any feeling of responsibility for death and injury. After all, the corporation’s money, not theirs, would pay the damages.
Since the New York Times is not in the habit of quoting it’s own reports as “stunning” I ask again, where exactly did you get this quote?
Corporations are nothing more than collections of people, bound together by a morally irrelevent web of laws and paperwork. Therefore, a corporation has a moral responsibility related to the moral responsibility of the persons composing it and deciding how it acts --which is to say, a corporation at least as much moral responsibility as an ordinary flesh person, by any method of combining its members’ moralities that I can think of.
Now, it’s a fact that the people who compose corporations often use the convenient legal conditions defined to protect them from the effects of their actions, but that doesn’t relieve them of their moral responsibilities; it merely facilitates and protects their cavalier disregard for them.
sure, being a capitalist, I think a majority of corporations/businesses have good intentions; that is, they care about maximizing profits which consists of following “stringent” government regulations and fulfilling their customer’s needs. Otherwise they’ll eventually fail.
There’s always the 2% greedy cheating corps that give capitalism a bad name… but they are clearly in the minority. Although it seems as though anti-capitalists tend to focus on them… Go figure.
They don’t fail if all of them act the same way. Following “stringent” stringent government regulations includes contracting for toys with China without a quality assurance program that prevents lead paint on toys?
apparently China lacks any regulations… there’s the loophole. Matel is paying for it now though, aren’t they.
Don’t corporations have to be chartered by States? (individual States of the USA) Can’t the citizens of these States decide (indirectly, through election of state officials and other means) whether a given corporation should be granted a charter? If so, can “we the people” shut down any corporation that we deem to be immoral? (at least shut it down in our own state–they could, sadly, always just move to a more Republican one)
Loophole my ass. China doesn’t have to have regulations. It is the responsibility of the prime to insure that all sub contractors and their sub contractors provide a safe product.
Mattel should pay for it. They did the corporate thing and took the cheapest bidder without any regard for how it was that they could be so cheap.
and Mattel will pay through the nose for taking the shortcut… that’ll teach them.
This bunch of executives, maybe. I think the record shows, though, that the next bunch will have to learn it all over again.
I haven’t heard of the shareholders throwing any Mattel executives out on their ear for misusing the company’s resources to buy substandard goods that had to be thrown away.
Mattel if just a figment of paperwork. Nothing will happen until the executives are held personally responsible.
I also think the fiduciary responsibility of the executives to the shareholders needs some clarification. As things stand now, a shareholder that wants to can give the execs hell on wheels for not taking the cheapest bid. Sure, they might be able to win but it takes a lot of their time and costs a lot of money. I’m not sure the cororate funds can pay to defend an executive against the charge that he or she didn’t act in the coporations best interest.
Actually China DOES have regulations. Plenty of them. They are simply not uniformly enforced. Or they are, um, subject to spot enforcement…or not…depending on circumstance.
-XT
Never mind, I found it myself.
It’s from an Op-Ed piece from the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson.
A word of advice, coberst-you should always attribute your quotes.
It seems to me that when a corporation does its business only within a nation the citizens will keep them from egregious foul behavior but when they become international all bets are off. Globalization sets corporations free like they never have been.
:dubious: Never heard of the East India Company I take it…
Companies have to follow the local laws of whatever country they have facilities in…unless of course that host country doesn’t enforce their own laws. Or chooses not to enforce their laws selectively. Or is so weak that it can’t enforce its own laws. In such a circumstance its not the company that is ultimately responsible for this fault…its the host country.
Again, if a company is taking advantage of a host countries weakness or whatever, and you don’t like it…don’t buy their products. Expecting corporations (let alone individual humans) to not only have morals but to have YOUR morals is, well, kind of futile…IMHO. So…if you don’t like it don’t buy from those corporations that don’t meet your own standards, or that do distasteful things.
-XT
As long as a corporation is not violating any laws, the only way you can shut it down is if enough people choose not to buy it’s products and services. You could also file a lawsuit against it if you feel you have a case.
And you shouldn’t be able to have a corporation de-registered simply because you don’t like it. Everyone’s always for freedom until someone uses that freedom to do something they don’t agree with.
The company selling goods in the US has to provide goods that conform to US laws. It is up to the company buying those goods for resale to make certain that is the case. The foreign laws and standards are irrelevant.
The US Consumer Product Safety Act is administered by the consumer_Product_Safety_Commission
While the US can’t enforce US laws on foreigh firms, the US corporate buyer can by contract require conformance to those laws.
To enforce product safety by not buying a company’s products is unrealistic. How can a consumer tell by looking at a toy train that is has lead paint? To try this would mean that you don’t by anything that is foreign made since you can’t be sure of its safety.
I never claimed differently so I’m unsure of your point.
Again I never claimed differently. I agree completely. In addition market forces come into play at some point. I think that China may have taken one hit too many recently (there was a recall of baby cribs most recently…like a million of them and several deaths). I believe that both corporate buyers AND consumers will also be looking more closely at goods coming from China.
-XT
Oops. When Mattel was first brought up I somehow mistook for yours a JohnnyEnigma’s post pointing out that "apparently China had no laws as a possible out for Mattel.
Coulda happened to anybody. :smack:
No worries 
-XT