While recently reviewing the Friends of the Earth US (FOE) website, I saw that they introduced a new genetic engineering policy campaigner named Eric Hoffman. Congratulations to Mr. Hoffman. Perhaps at a future time, he and I can have some interesting discussions on issues of mutual concern. But I hope that those future discussions would be based upon better writing than that which I found in connection with Mr. Hoffman’s employment announcement.
As part of the FOE US introduction of Mr. Hoffman, FOE used the following lead-in passage:
Friends of the Earth is a fierce advocate of scientific progress, but corporations often seek profit from scientific developments with little regard for human health. We must take precaution (sic) to ensure new technologies don’t do more harm than good.
Now, I’ll put aside the minor spelling error in their second sentence. I’ll also put aside the fact that there was no date on this post, which is really just a “bush league” error when it comes to Website writing and management. Instead of those small errors, I’ll just concentrate on the meaning of the passage itself.
This approach of playing the “anti-corporate card” gets a bit wearisome, and is plainly just bad argumentation. The anti-corporate card to which I refer is the phrase, “corporations often seek profit from scientific development with little regard for human health.” Let’s take this phrase apart to see how it represents poor argumentation on the part of FOE and only weakens any argument that they are trying to make.
“Corporations often seek profit.” Yes. Okay, I can go along with that part. That is the function of a corporation, to seek a profit in its activities, many of which are directed at scientific developments. Thankfully they do that. Without profits, no one would ever get a merit raise in pay. And without scientific developments, people would be dropping dead from what are now, as compared to the past, “easily-cured” illnesses or from complications arising out of minor injuries. Now, let’s move on to the next part of the phrase and talk about “with little regard for human health.”
This part of the phrase conjures up a picture of research & development departments operated by zany, madcap scientists who indiscriminately toss new products out the door without adequately testing them, or at least without testing them to the satisfaction of government regulators within the jurisdictions in which their corporations do business. In my career, I’ve known many R&D personnel, and have found them to be painfully cautious and responsible personalities, almost to the point, perhaps, of being too cautious. I’ve yet to meet one who I would consider as either a businessperson or scientist with “little regard for human health.” If, indeed, these individuals, and the corporations for which they worked, “often” acted as portrayed by this phrase, their mad scientist-like lack of “regard for human health” would produce deadly products quickly killing thousands, drawing the ire of the marketplace, causing the corporation to lose revenue quickly, putting the
Continue reading FOE Plays Anti-Corporate Card
For those interested in learning about the anti-corporate movement, I recommend a book that I recently completed. The Rise of the Anti-Corporate Movement by Evan Osborne is a first-rate work.
Subtitled Corporations and the People Who Hate Them, in this book Evan does good work in laying out the history of the corporation, taking us back about four millennia to the origin of what evolved into today’s modern corporation. He then moves us forward in time, tracing the development of the corporation from ancient Assyria, up through 18th century Britain, and then to its current form both worldwide and in the United States. At each stop in this journey through corporate time, Evan stops to impress upon the reader the details of corporate myth created at each stage, emphasizing how those myths trickled down into today’s collective social conscience, but debunking the myth before continuing the journey.
During the early parts of the journey, he deftly points out that previous forms of the corporation had, by virtue of their legal foundation in significantly less democratic societies, much more power than the corporate form takes in today’s America, decrying the claims by anti-corporate activists that modern corporations are omnipotent and all-powerful. He punctuates this illustrative journey of countering the claims of the anti-corporate movement (ACM) with profound insights, based on common sense and everyday observations. One such insight undermines general ACM claims of runaway corporate power by observing the corporate disdain for the corporate income tax and stating that if corporations were truly as all-powerful as the ACM makes them out to be, then indeed there would be no income tax.
About a third of the way through the book, Evan, an economist at Wright State University, takes on the economic assertion often put forth by the ACM, that society is actually poorer because of the existence of the corporation. Over many pages, he does an excellent job explaining how this claim is invalid. His counter-argument is clear, cogent, and convincing. I’ve read other books making this same argument (For example, The Role of Business in the Modern World, by David Henderson.), but they were not nearly as on-point or as substantially sourced as is The Rise.
This is definitely a book that should be read by all engaged in business issues involving activists and NGOs.
It’s also a book that could benefit members of the general public, to help dispel some of those corporate myths generated over the past few hundred years. I have no illusions that members of the general public will read this book any time soon. But, the loss is theirs because of the great insights they would miss. I’ll close with one of those insights.
Near the end of the book, when Evan invokes the late economist Milton Friedman who stated that the corporation owes no more “social responsibility” than any other member of society, Evan states that it is just as improper for the anti-corporate campaigner to use the law to force
Continue reading A Journey in Anti-Corporate Thought
Wondering how your company can become more competitive in today’s “anti-corporate” business environment? (Or at least a business environment that’s portrayed as being “anti-corporate.”) Hey. Who isn’t? Apparently it’s “known” that today’s company operates in an “anti-corporate” environment. So let’s talk about it.
I recently finished reading “Engaging Fringe Stakeholders for Competitive Imagination” by Stuart Hart and Sanjay Sharma. In this 2004 article from the Academy of Management Executive, the authors offer up the theory of engaging with “fringe stakeholders” in order to reach two objectives. The first objective, which is related to anti-corporatism, is about avoiding what the authors call “smart mobs,” which they define as the wrath of individuals that can be created and mustered online for the purpose of spreading negative information about the company. The second objective the authors describe is related to efficient product development. The achievement of both of these goals depends upon getting pertinent information from the fringes of the stakeholder sphere which surrounds a company. The article details how companies may go about achieving these goals.
The achievement of the second objective, more efficient product development, is described with various case studies showing how certain corporations have extended their market research operations to the outer fringes of the societies in which those companies do business. From this “fringe information” collected have come new initiatives for products designed to solve problems that the companies had not known existed prior to their journey to the fringe. Thus, the term “competitive imagination” used in this article’s title. The insights gained through the fringe market research give those companies who conduct it a competitive leg up on their competition. Very sound reasoning. No objections here at all.
There is a double-edged sword in this approach, one that cuts toward both objectives. The authors maintain that by performing this type of informational outreach, not only may a company discover new consumer insights for application within product development, but the company may also simultaneously engage with fringe stakeholders, or what they describe as “non-salient” stakeholders, who had previously been ignored by the company. As I pointed out earlier, this is the first objective that the authors raised. Hart and Sharma say that through this engagement and interaction with, and from the subsequent input from, these fringe stakeholders, the company may preclude a public relations backlash initiated by these fringe actors, who may manifest as the “smart mob,” against future company actions. Again, I have no objections here. Proactive communication can serve as a preemptory tactic, reaping future benefits. But what I do object to is the premise upon which Hart and Sharma base most of their thesis. That premise is found in one pair of statements near the beginning of this article.
On the second page of this article we see the passage,
The power of governments has eroded in the wake of globalization and the growth of transnational corporations with global supply chains that span several continents. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups have stepped into the breach, assuming
Continue reading One Source Doesn't An Anti-Corporate Environment Make
In the digital world, most everyone keeps their eye out for what will be the “next big thing.” Usually it’s a technology, either hardware or software. Lately Google’s been hitting it hard and heavy on the forecasted next big thing stage, Google Wave and Droid.
But I’ve been thinking lately that the next big thing in the online world might be a movement, rather than a technology. And that movement I have in mind is “slacktivism.”
What’s slacktivism? The word itself is a portmanteau of “slacker” and “activism.” Thus, the meaning becomes clear. For further edification, let’s take a definition from the UrbanDictionary.com. They define slacktivism as:
One of those feel-good internet campaigns that doesn’t actually help anybody or has political impact. It’s your way of pretending to care while sitting on your butt in front of a computer playing WoW. Also used for people who want to get a million people on their page by before bettering themselves (sic) or the world instead of just doing it.
Other than the grammar or typo error there in the last sentence, the UrbanDictionary.com is clearly saying that slacktivism is something like what we could call “armchair activism.” It’s being an “activist” without actually being one, although you could still wear the black tee shirt and/or beret while sitting at your computer.
Slacktivism is a way for people to make themselves feel like they are advocating for a social cause, while actually committing little or no time or money to the effort. It’s, for the most part, a feel-good activity. Not only does slacktivism make individuals feel good about themselves when they sign up to be a friend, fan, or follower on the page of a cause’s website or social network or Twitter page, but the act of slacktivism impresses others with the individual’s “social awareness.” That impression, of which the individual is aware, further adds to the individual’s ego gratification.
I don’t think we need any social psychology references to support these assertions. It’s all pretty much backed by common sense acquired from our years of experience with the human condition. So, given the ease of slacktivism as measured against its psychological benefits, it would follow that many people would sign-up online for an activist’s cause, and not really add much to the activist effort in the process. To test my theory, let’s have an example.
On Tuesday, January 19, 2010 which is the day on which I wrote this post (Yes, I know it’s dated January 28th, but thanks to the magic of the Word Press scheduling function such miracles are possible.), I went to the Greenpeace.org/usa site and clicked on the link to their Facebook fan page. When I went to their Facebook fan page, I noticed that, on that date, Greenpeace USA had 41,728 fans. I wanted to see how “active” these individuals might be, so to test my slacktivism theory, I scrolled down to the Greenpeace USA “Causes” box and clicked on “See Greenpeace USA’s Total Impact.”
For
Continue reading Could Slacktivism Be the Next Big Thing?
Competition comes in several classes. Let’ discuss.
First of all, you, as a business person, have obviously known about the class of “direct” competitors since you went into business, and probably you have known about this class of competitor as far back as those tender years when you were first able to sit up and recognize for what money was actually used. Direct competitors, of course, are those other companies which sell the same products or services that your own company sells.
Secondly, you’ve most likely known about the class of “indirect” competitors, also just about as long as you’ve known for what money is used. When you were a kid with five bucks burning a hole in your pocket, you knew that you could use that moolah to buy a toy or you could use it to buy a movie ticket or you could use it to buy an ice cream cone. None of the companies which produced those goods or that service were direct competitors, but they were indirect competitors vying for that five bucks in your pocket.
The classes of direct and indirect competition are not new. Business people have always taken seriously the impact of direct and even indirect competition, and have planned and altered their business models accordingly. This is well-known.
“Irregular Competition” Introduced
But what perhaps isn’t as well-known to you is the class of competition which I have named “irregular competition.” That is a term I coin and a concept which I define and introduce to you today.
When your direct and indirect competitors bring their offerings to market, they tell that market just how great are their offerings and how well those offerings can meet the needs and wants of the market targeted. And while making their sales pitch, those direct and indirect competitors play with the image of your company. Your competitors, direct and indirect alike, will take every opportunity to portray your company image in a manner that would not please you and by doing so communicate to your common market how well your products or services do not meet the needs of those consumers that you jointly serve.
Either through comparative advertising, or through innuendo, or via some other communications mechanism, your direct or indirect competition promotes the image of their own company and demotes the image of your company. Again, this is well-known. So if it’s well-known, why am I writing about it?
I write about this in order to make a point about competition in general, either direct or indirect, and to tie that point into the less well-known concept of “irregular competition.” Competition is not just about promoting competing products or services. It’s also about demoting, about tearing down, tearing down the image of the competitor. To tear down the image of a competitor means to battle for what the competitor’s company or brand image means, and to achieve an agendized goal in the process.
In the case of your direct and indirect competition, that agendized goal is to sell more products or services
Continue reading "Irregular Competition" – The Newest Threat
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, authors Clark Judge and Richard Torrenzano discuss anticipated changes to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules which will allow more stockholder freedom of access to the process of corporate resolutions via the annual proxy.
Is this a new threat to corporate strategy?
Briefly for those of you unfamiliar with this process, annually corporations have their owners (stockholders) vote on various proposals, foremost of which is the selection of the members of the board of directors.
Per the article, these rule changes would allow various stockholders, or groups of stockholders, to nominate individuals for board seats. That nomination process would be at the expense of the corporation and would, again according to the article, create a campaign and election process much like that of any political election we see staged before us every November. It’s forecasted that this process will create more intense debates over various issues before society, offering groups with political agendas such as those of global warming and sustainability, the opportunity to place their candidate of choice on a corporate board. By definition, that candidate of choice would be a candidate who answers to a political constituency, instead of just a constituency of investors, i.e., owners.
A process such as that outlined above would give a clear advantage to activist groups for the placement of their own candidates on a targeted corporate board. This is an advantage which is not currently enjoyed by any activist group. And SEC rule changes such as those proposed above will go a long way to affording more power to activist groups.
But is this just another wrinkle in the everyday ebb and flow of activist vs. corporation? After all, activists and corporations have been wrestling for years. Well, yes, it’s possibly a new wrinkle. But I think this wrinkle is more wrinkly than most that have come before it. Why? Well, the article makes the point that, of course, corporations have always had to deal with multiple stakeholders, stakeholders which activists have traditionally claimed to represent. But the article points out something which is the theme of this blog. That theme is that the current environment in which corporations now need to deal with multiple stakeholders, led by activists, is very different. And one of those factors of difference is social media.
Another recent Wall Street Journal article amplifies this point about social media’s place in the new corporate activism. For example, in this article by Cari Tuna, it is pointed out that a new social networking site, MoxyVote.com, aggregates “advocates” and individual shareholders so that discussions about various proxy initiatives may be made. The effect of which helps activists to present their position to a group of selected shareholders in a socially-supporting environment.
In her article, Cari Tuna also mentions similar sites which allow advocates and individual investors to engage in political conversation regarding proxy initiatives. One such similar site is TransparentDemocracy.org. This site allows
Continue reading "Liberal" Access to the Proxy
|
|
