Bakan notes that privatization of the environment for corporations to have real venture in the environment may form a way of proceeding. Suppose the corporations take charge of the environments or they possess a fiscal venture in it, they would have more inclination into taking care of it, as this is believed to increase its value in resale. Corporations give considerable care for assets which they have chances of reselling unlike the assets that can only be used once (Friedman, 25). As a matter of fact, what has been shown by empirical studies indicate that privatization has resulted to environmental improvements as opposed to what Bakan asserts.
Bakan argues that the fundamental point is that corporations do not permit and have no legal authority of allowing a divergence between corporate public accountability in any level, as well as the push for shareholder and profit value. Corporate collective accountability is termed as been illegitimate, especially when it is authentic (Bakan, 37). Suppose a company dedicates too much of its assets to various types of corporate collective accountability, whether internally or externally then it ends up failing in the duty it has to the shareholders. On this perspective, Bakan gives an example of Hutton’s British judgment vs. West Cork Railway Company. He notes that the law states that there ought to be no ale and cakes, but there should be no ale and cakes unless when it is needful for the company’s benefit. He further states that charity has no position in boards of directors.
A calculus in corporation exists whereby the cost is pushed to different groups like consumers, workers and the environment. The life of a human being is also considered in the calculus of the corporation since the corporation is basically an amoral being. The documents for pricing turn into being exploitation science (Bakan, 66). Dangerous products can be sold to consumers as it was experienced when companies for cars allow un-road worthy products to be used, thinking that the rectification costs were outweighed cost of losing life that may be linked with the involved company; and literally, the environment can be deserted. The account by Bakan is interesting in manner in which he gives chance to free market supporters to make argument on his behalf.
The solution by Bakan regarding corporate judgment indictment is a sturdy argument of fundamental advancement to the standard and likelihood of closer guideline. Regarding this principle he argues that, no individual would critically dispute the fact that persons ought to control themselves and that regulations against theft, attack, and murder are not necessary as individuals are collectively liable. However, strangely, people are meant to think that business individuals like institutional psychopaths lacking any moral conviction sense and those having the authority and impetus of inducing impairment and destruction, ought not to be given the liberty of governing themselves (Bakan, 110).
Corporate culture has been growing; there has been a continued drive for expanding the sway of corporation commodification or commercialization of lives. Among the aspects of this, is the drive for deregulation which according to Bakan was demonstrated in the United States in the debacle of Enron. Enron utilized the influence it had politically in removing government restraints in its processes hence exploiting the resultant freedom to undertake practices which were dubious though they were considerably profitable (Bakan, 100). Nonetheless, he deems cultural barriers removal to favor a corporation to be still disturbing.
Joel, Bakan, ‘The Corporation. The pathological pursuit and power’ Constable (2004a)
Milton Friedman, ‘Capitalism and Freedom’ Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002)