Fish in a barrel.

I think it's silly how people expect some bizarre set of anthropomorphic qualities from a corporation, as if it's somehow something more than just a business. Businesses don't have consciences. People do.

I mean, businesses have a few major responsibilities, and their purpose is to fulfill them. Social responsibility is just one of them. So is profit. If you focus on one responsibility and completely shirk another, you're running a bad business, and that street goes two ways. Why do you think so many businesses are going green these days? Cha-ching!

@Hambriq: Well, profit is really a business's only responsibility -- at least for a major corporation. Anything on the social responsibility side of things has to be imposed by the government (as through regulations) or consumer pressure. It seems to me that any business that's "going green" isn't doing it to save the earth, but so they can advertise themselves as "eco-friendly" and appeal to more environmentally-minded consumers.

This could be similar to the hockey helmet situation. Before helmets were required, the vast majority of hockey players both wanted hockey helmets to be required AND did not wear helmets themselves. They couldn't afford to lose the competitive advantage by wearing a helmet if other players weren't wearing one, but a uniformly-enforced requirement would allow them to wear a helmet.

Profit is the corporation's ONLY responsibility to society. "Social responsibility" is a shield that corrupt executives use to spend shareholder money on things that do not benefit the shareholder.

Companies ask for regulation when they expect it to benefit the shareholders. In cases like product safety, they're caught between a rock and a hard place: As long as everyone else in the industry is shipping unsafe product, and they find themselves unable to differentiate their product on safety, they'll be eaten alive by price competition if they don't follow suit. They're asking the government to help them to collude, to limit competition on product safety.

Sometimes that's a good thing.

@Beerad: businesses are going green b/c the cost of energy has ballooned in the past 6 years. so it's probably more of a money decision. the marketing spin just makes it a double win.

even though the bottom line is a corporations main motivator, they have always had an intrinsic responsibility to better society - the great industrialists were also grand philanthropists. the names carnegie, hershey, rockefellar, & vanderbilt adorn public (& private) buildings all across america. today's corporations also devote large amounts of cash to social projects. one could argue that it's all about tax shelters & marketing, but i think the best companies also realize that these programs translate into real dollars down the line.

@Beerad: Correct, and "social responsibility" is not really the right term for regulatory and consumer pressure: it's just another cost on the balance sheet. Which is why corporate lobbying is a billion dollar industry in and of itself. The US system is so inherently broken it's surprising there are ANY consumer rights left.

@mac-phisto: The industrialists were philanthropists in an age when their companies were only nominally held in shares but in reality were still family controlled. They weren't forced to toe a profit forecast every month.

Where's Admiral Ackbar when you need him..

@shoegazer: true, but even today we have companies that are majority controlled by families or small groups of investors. even absent of this, corporations still fund philanthropic missions. some even have entire executive staffs devoted to their projects. it's possible that the reasons behind them have shifted, but as i stated before, i think the most successful businesses realize that giving back is an investment, not just a tax dodge.

I know I write this all the time, but now I'm begging.
Can we please all agree that federal regulation is not the great and reasonable thing that people claim it is?

Oh, and the New York Times stinks.

@Hambriq: Businesses don't make decisions, people do.

@Cassifras: sir, you are out of order. it's not even remotely possible to agree to that until we hold a hearing to discuss whether or not funds should be allocated to examine the plausibility of that statement in an investigative subcommittee. after comments on the matter have been submitted & debate has closed, the chair will entertain a motion for a formal request of funds from the appropriations committee for the creation of the subcommittee. then, we'll move onto nominations of members, appointment of the chair, allocation of funds for staffing requests.....*snore*

=P

All you have to do is look at heavily regulated industries like phone service, cable service, and gasoline to see that regulation for the sake of the consumer inevitably turns into protectionism where the companies get a government mandate to screw you at a certain sustained level. And the companies know this.

The only thing worse than pure socialism or pure capitalism is companies and the govt. in partnership. You get the worst of both.

Social responsibility lies on the shoulders of consumers. If people didn't buy irresponsible products, no company would make them.

"Social responsibility" lies on the shoulders of consumers, not businesses. If people didn't buy bad products nobody would sell them.

@shoegazer: "Correct, and "social responsibility" is not really the right term for regulatory and consumer pressure: it's just another cost on the balance sheet.

This is precisely my point. Companies are going green because it's profitable for them to do so. Granted, I'm no business expert, but from what I understand, "green" companies are growing faster and at a higher rate than their non-green counterparts, and have been for the past few years.

And sloppychris makes a great point as well, and I get the feeling that this may be why "green" now has multiple levels of meaning. You know, like money. Because money is green. I'm witty.