Yet another excellent piece from Peter Montague...How might citizens in the US, Canada and elsewhere oppose trends described here that they don't like? Any ideas? Sally >X-Authentication-Warning: clarknet.clark.net: Urachel set sender to >rachel!rachel.clark.net!peter using -f >>Received: by rachel.clark.net (UUPC/extended 1.12r); > Thu, 23 Oct 1997 21:23:08 -0400 >Date: Thu, 23 Oct 97 21:23:07 -0500 >From: Peter Montague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Trends in Corporate Accountability >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: Peter Montague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >=======================Electronic Edition======================== >. . >. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #569 . >. ---October 23, 1997--- . >. HEADLINES: . >. TRENDS IN CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY -- WW III, Pt. 3 . >. ========== . >. Environmental Research Foundation . >. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . >. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >. ========== . >. Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send . >. E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the single word HELP . >. in the message; back issues also available via ftp from . >. ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com . >. and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/ . >. Subscribe: send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >. with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. . >================================================================= > >TRENDS IN CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY -- WW III, Pt. 3 > >Most people want the same things: > >** better education for their children; > >** good health, especially for their children; > >** a better environment (broadly defined to include housing, >recreation, and transportation, in addition to clean air, water, >and food); > >** safer communities; > >** more economic security; > >** stronger families and family support; > >** less government regulation and smaller government; > >** fewer taxes; > >** more local control. > >Yet the American economic and political systems are not >delivering most of these things to most people: > >** Many school systems are deteriorating, public library budgets >are being cut, and TV is "dumbing down" both adults and children: >by the time they are 18, American children have been in school >11,000 hours but have spent 15,000 to 18,000 hours in front of a >TV set; > >** By many measures, children's health is declining --cancers are >increasing, and so are diabetes, asthma, infectious diseases, >excessive weight, and attention deficits, to name only the most >obvious problems. > >** Overall, as we have documented again and again, the >environment is tending to get worse in many respects despite the >relentless barrage of corporate "greenwash" claiming the contrary >in the media; > >** Many communities aren't safe and many more are not perceived >as safe (thanks to the media's obsession with murder and mayhem >in the local news); > >** Most people are less well-off AND less secure today than they >were 20 years ago (see REHW #567); > >** Families are having a hard time because so many family members >are working and the children are therefore somewhat neglected; >spare time is shrinking; people are demoralized and stressed out >by their lives outside the home so to numb themselves they allow >TV to dominate their living rooms; elder care is a growing >dilemma for most families; debt is growing; for many, retirement >is a fading hope; > >** Government IS getting smaller but not always in ways that help >most people --for example, the Internal Revenue Service IS >getting smaller but this just means more wealthy tax evaders are >going unpunished; environment, health and social service agencies >are facing budget cuts while public subsidies to corporate >polluters are holding steady or rising; > >** Taxes have been mounting for the middle class and the working >poor while corporations and the rich are paying less of their >fair share; > >** And, finally, Congress SAYS it is giving more control to >people at the local level while the REAL direction is to >"globalize" decision-making, which means transferring control >from local citizens to transnational corporations that answer to >no one. > >As a result of these trends, cynicism, depression and ennui are >rampant among Americans; racism is increasing (even the President >has noticed it is a problem) as more people compete for crumbs >from a shrinking slice of the pie; most people don't vote >(because candidates don't offer real alternatives --any that do >are clobbered by the money bullies); so the system is stuck in a >vicious circle in which power and wealth are relentlessly >siphoned off into the pockets of a smaller and smaller fraction >of the people. Forty percent of the people are doing well enough >to continue to support the 1% who are becoming filthy rich --and >the other 60%, who are hurting, nurse their wounds alone, >disengaged, numbed by drugs or beer or television, or simply too >tired to fight back. > >Notice the key actors in the scenario just described: the media, >government officials (elected), corporate decision-makers and the >people. How are they related? > >Ninety percent of the media are owned by fewer than 20 >corporations that therefore dominate public discussion and >debate; these corporations determine what people will talk about >and the limits of the public discussion. The elected government >is controlled by corporations through campaign contributions >(which are required because expensive media exposure is the key >to election); the people are made insecure, discouraged and >disengaged largely because of corporate policies and practices >(downsizing, wage cuts, forced give-backs, overseas flight, union >busting --or simply the fear that any of these tactics will be >used). Corporations control government; government greases the >skids for increasing corporate control. People are disrespected >and cut out of the decision-making loop. Democracy is hollowed >out --the democratic forms remain, but the substance is missing. >We can all vote, but voting seems to change nothing, at least not >at the national level. > >It is a vicious circle, self-perpetuating. BUT MAYBE THE >CORPORATIONS WILL GO TOO FAR. Despite their obvious successes in >the past decade, corporate elites seem bent on consolidating >their power even further by insulating themselves COMPLETELY from >popular control. Consider these trends: > >1. SLAPP suits are increasing and have taken a new twist in >recent months. SLAPPs are lawsuits intended to frighten people, >to make them clam up. The new trend in SLAPPS is for companies >to claim tortious interference with their profits and to demand >compensation for alleged losses. Here is a typical scenario: a >corporation is planning to pollute a community and deplete its >resources (by building an incinerator, for example). A local >group opposes the corporate proposal, defending the community, >trying to maintain it as a nice place to live and work. If the >defenders succeed, the corporation sues them, claiming that it >has lost money because of the group's interference. The >corporation demands huge compensation for its alleged losses. >The defenders tend to get very quiet and focus on the struggle to >maintain their lives in the face of a corporate army of lawyers >trying to destroy them --and the next group of defenders thinks >twice before speaking out. Our First Amendment rights begin to >shrivel. > >2. The Securities and Exchange Commission --a federal agency --is >trying to insulate corporations from shareholders who might bring >shareholder resolutions to change corporate behavior. In the >recent past, such resolutions have changed corporate behavior in >regard to apartheid, child labor and prison labor. Even though >the vast majority of shareholder resolutions fail to gain a >majority vote, they create a platform from which to expose and >criticize corporate policies and practices. Now --this month >--the SEC has proposed to modify SEC Rule 14(a)(8), to make it >much more difficult (in many instances impossible) for >shareholders to bring resolutions for a vote. If the SEC >succeeds, it will further insulate corporate managers from >influence by shareholders. > >3. As we saw last week, the Clinton administration (with strong >bipartisan support) is trying to lock the U.S. into a new "free >trade" agreement --the Multilateral Agreement on Investment >(MAI). The MAI would: > >--Allow corporations to sue municipal, state and federal >governments in an international tribunal, whose decision would be >binding, with no possibility of appeal; > >--Compensate investors in full when their assets are appropriated >through "unreasonable" regulation; > >--Limit or eliminate performance requirements (laws that require >corporations to meet certain environmental standards if they want >tax incentives or low-interest development loans, for example) >--thus reducing (or eliminating) the possibility that communities >might impose their values on corporate behavior; > >--Remove all restrictions on international movement of capital, >and disallow local laws favoring locally-controlled capital (such >as a community-controlled redevelopment bank). > >4. We saw earlier (REHW #552) that 19 states have now passed >"audit privilege" laws. As the NEW YORK TIMES describes the >trend, "Urged on by a coalition of big industries, one state >after another is adopting legislation to protect companies from >disclosure or punishment when they discover environmental >offenses at their own plants." In essence, state laws are >giving corporations immunity from punishment if they self-report >violations of environmental laws. Furthermore, any documents >related to the self-reporting become official secrets, cannot be >divulged to the public, and cannot become evidence in any legal >proceedings. > >If a murderer confesses, he or she still faces prosecution. But >these new "audit privilege" laws insulate corporate outlaws and >polluters from accountability to governments and citizens. Under >these laws, confession exonerates a corporation, and any >documents related to the confession become secret and privileged, >hidden from citizens who might seek redress for harms they >suffered from the pollution. Further insulation from >accountability. > >5. Corporations are rolling back the system of environmental >regulations at the federal and state levels. A tidal wave of >regulatory reform is sweeping through every legislative body in >the nation. These roll-backs have many different names: Project >XL and the Common Sense Initiative (both Clinton proposals); ISO >14000; the Environmental Leadership Program; brownfields; air >pollutant and water pollutant trading schemes; expansion of >risk-assessment-based standard-setting procedures; new >federal-state "partnership" agreements; and proposed new >definitions of what constitutes solid and hazardous wastes. > >All of these alternative proposals have a few common elements. >They allow corporations to negotiate their own performance and >pollution standards with governments. Because these negotiated >standards are unique in each case, citizens have to understand >each agreement on a case-by-case basis --and so do the government >regulators. At a time when regulatory budgets are declining, the >resources needed to negotiate with the polluters (and enforce >agreements) are growing. Citizens can barely understand the >present system of uniform standards. The new system is much more >complicated, so citizens are effectively be cut out of the >oversight process. In many instances, citizen lawsuits are >specifically prohibited by these new arrangements. Thus the >corporations are further insulated from citizens. > >Today, corporate and government policies are working relentlessly >to put more and more people out of work, substituting energy and >materials for human labor (and in the process depleting natural >resources and polluting the planet). For a long time such >policies seemed to make sense. But today these policies are >enriching the top 5%, creating the good life for the wealthiest >40% (at least in the short term) and destroying the future for >the remaining 60%. THE ENVIRONMENT, DEMOCRACY, CIVIL SOCIETY, >AND THE ECONOMY ARE THE SAME PROBLEM even though we (mistakenly) >consider each separately. > >As Paul Hawken said recently, "We can't --whether through >monetary means, government programs, or charity --create a sense >of value and dignity in people's lives when we're simultaneously >developing a society that doesn't need them."[1] As the U.S. >Conference of Catholic Bishops said in 1986, "Full employment is >the foundation of a just society." Environmental justice will >only be achieved when we have a semblance of economic justice. > >Hawken says the solution is to "fire the unproductive kilowatts, >barrels of oil, tons of material, and pulp from old-growth >forests --and hire more people to do so." He says drastically >reducing resource use will dramatically diminish our impact on >the environment and create a multitude of new jobs. But will the >big corporations allow the needed changes to occur? And what >will happen if they don't? In the meantime, there's lots WE COULD >BE DOING. > --Peter Montague > (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) > >=============== >[1] Paul Hawken, "Natural Capitalism," MOTHER JONES (March/April, >1997), pgs. 40-53. > >Descriptor terms: corporations; economic redevelopment; >children; taxation; education; television; crime; racism; slapp >suits; securities and exchange commission; sec; mai; multilateral >agreement on investment; regulation; regulatory reform; audit >privilege laws; > >################################################################ > NOTICE >Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic >version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge >even though it costs our organization considerable time and money >to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service >free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution >(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send >your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research >Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do >not send credit card information via E-mail. For further >information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. >by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL. > --Peter Montague, Editor >################################################################ >
