The answer to that question is almost always "no," and certainly until proven otherwise. Complaining that these corporate PR statements are anything other than lip service is like complaining that the world isn't fair, or that everyone dies. Perhaps a sad truth, but one you should've figured out by the time you turned twelve.
Corollary: corporations are not hypocrites, either, because corporations don't hold beliefs. They make PR statements. Their belief is "I will say what I need to in order to be left in peace to maximize profits." Any corporate leader that doesn't hold to that will be replaced by someone that does, either proximally (by the board and shareholders) or ultimately (by one day landing on the wrong side of idealogy and getting outcompeted by organizations that weather the storms more nimbly.)
Complaining about for-profit institutions pursuing profit is, at best, a category error, and has nothing to do with our ability to shape the world except a childish inability to separate an organization represented by people from actual people.
It's like making a pool in your backyard and complaining it's a bad place to jog. That's not what it's for. Private for-profit entities aren't for public policy, or for moral leadership. They're for taking money and giving you widgets. If there's a manner in which their doing so runs contrary to desired public policy, that's a government and regulatory issue. That they've managed to somehow convince you they're "people"/"sentient" adequately enough for you to criticize their moral stance is an astounding success of marketing and branding. Because it takes a lot of marketing to convince people that widget-making is anything other than widget-making, for good or for ill.
I honestly can’t even imagine what it would mean for companies to have absolutely no moral responsibility. Wouldn’t they behave like gangs or mobsters? Or even more extreme?
And no, that wasn't snark. I'm basically paraphrasing Alan Moore's statement that democracy is just another way of being ruled by the biggest mob.
That said, I don't see why that means we should expect that behaviour in the sense that we should consider this the expected, correct, behvaiour from corporations.
Perhaps if everyone believed that moral and ethical behaviour from corporations should be the expectation and not just a fairytale for <12 year olds we'd actually see that behaviour in the world. If everyone was like OP in condeming these corporations maybe their expectations would eventually become real.
No, they wouldn't, because the selection pressure on the organization is for the minimum amount of signaling required to optimize profits, not actual morality - not least of which because optimizing for profits optimizes for continued existence of the organization, and maximizing morality does not. Holding them to a higher moral standard just changes the measure of "what is the minimum amount of signaling required?" Selection pressure is unyielding - values that don't affect survival ultimately don't matter, because however much you like it, it will be competed out of existence.
Nor could an organization exhibit actual morality, because an organization doesn't have continuity of thought or policy - flip a few board members, change an executive team, and the people whose judgement comprises "the company's judgement" just changed entirely. It would be like discussing the morality of a robot which regularly swapped the brain it contains.
You're making the same category error as the previous poster: describing "corporation" as a noun that has a characteristic known as "morality," and then lamenting the amount of "morality" we expect from it.
Morality is for people. Profit-seeking institutions don't have morality - they have regulatory constraints on profit-seeking avenues. Tricking people into thinking corporations have the former is a jedi mind trick: keep people focused on controlling corporations with the same social censure mechanisms that work on people means you're not focusing your time and effort on the mechanisms of control that would actually work on corporations.
It's like a red dragon walking around talking about oh, gosh, how much his sunburn hurts. He's immune to fire; put away the torches and focus on something that might actually work.
we can have non-profit-seeking expectations (like morality) of corporations because it's made up of people, not robots, and the drivers of profit are (often) indirect and nonlinear. and it doesn't matter that corporations don't internalize moral behavior the same way an individual does. it gets internalized throughout the people in the corporations (stochastically, not uniformly). that's a fine outcome for the expectations we have.
social censure would be modeled as losing regard (brand value) for the corporation, and corps spend craploads of money keeping up their image because it affects profits. censure should lead to some loss of aggregate business, which does ultimately put profit pressure on the corporation.
maybe that's less effective compared to direct regulation, but social censure is immensely more accessible than regulation for most people and even most other businesses. maybe censure is not as good as regulation, but that's a claim that at least requires some rhetorical support. it's certainly better than nothing or a slim chance of proper regulation.
that said, we should do both, and more, to keep corporations--power structures--in line with what we as the people want (not the other way around). the balance is an unstable equilibrium and we need constant vigilance and pressure to maintain it favorably.
>> No, they wouldn't, because the selection pressure on the organization is for the minimum amount of signaling required to optimize profits, not actual morality - not least of which because optimizing for profits optimizes for continued existence of the organization, and maximizing morality does not.
But if everyone condemned corporations (assuming that translates into consumers not purchasing their products), then that becomes the selection criteria impacting their profit.
So whilst your point that the corporations don't hold 'real' moral positions is fine, the OP would appear to be also correct in their assertion that condemnation will push a corporation to take a moral position (or pseudo-moral position if you want) and their expectations would eventually become real.
So if people were to apply selection pressure on organizations by condeming their actions and removing them from mainstream acceptance, leading to reduced profits (e.g. "Ewww, you're wearing Nike? Don't you know those are made by child laborers?!"), the optimal behaviour for them will be to exhibit a more moral behaviour.
In particular, this would be much better than the attitude I replied to of "Of course Nike are using child laborers, as a corporation that is just what they do.".
> Nor could an organization exhibit actual morality, because an organization doesn't have continuity of thought or policy - flip a few board members, change an executive team, and the people whose judgement comprises "the company's judgement" just changed entirely. It would be like discussing the morality of a robot which regularly swapped the brain it contains.
> You're making the same category error as the previous poster: describing "corporation" as a noun that has a characteristic known as "morality," and then lamenting the amount of "morality" we expect from it.
I agree that the behvaiour of an orgnization is an emergent property of the members of that organization and their culture, so it is hard to ascribe morals to the organization as a whole. However, I don't think it really matters what mechanism generates a good behaviour as much as the good behaviour itself. In my metaphorical example so far, if the Nike CEO literally hated children and wanted to work them to death but halted all child labor just to save profits, I'm still happy that the practice of child labor was stopped. Furthermore, if the Head of an organization was held liable for the actions of that organization (either legally or just socially), they would work to make sure the organization behaves in a way that makes them comfortable. If everyone in the world agreed that a certain behaviour was required of that organization, then that would include the members of that organization and itself would influence the behaviour internally.
> Morality is for people. Profit-seeking institutions don't have morality - they have regulatory constraints on profit-seeking avenues. Tricking people into thinking corporations have the former is a jedi mind trick: keep people focused on controlling corporations with the same social censure mechanisms that work on people means you're not focusing your time and effort on the mechanisms of control that would actually work on corporations.
Sure, applying regulatory constraints on organizations is also useful (though the same caveats you yourself mentioned still apply, e.g. a common failure in these regulatory constraints is that the risk-adjusted penalty the regulation sets is lower than the risk-adjusted profit, so the organization is still incentivied to break regulations). This regulation can be the result of public demand (in as much as the politicans writing it also respond to social pressure).
> It's like a red dragon walking around talking about oh, gosh, how much his sunburn hurts. He's immune to fire;
Heck, even if an organization says something without meaning it, that still has value. If 10,000 brands update their Facebook page to say "Black Lives Matter" but do nothing further about it (like donating to relevant causes, promoting black workers inside the company etc.) that still helps normalize and propagate the idea that "Black Lives Matter" and has some value of itself (though obviously much less value than actually acting about it).
Neither do democratic government institutions (they do whatever the political winds say), nor non-democratic institutions (which are run for the benefit of those in charge of it).
The implication that the removal of profit would result in moral, ethical, and altruistic behavior is not supported by evidence.
It’s not just that. By encouraging civil unrest in the US/UK and continuing to funnel money to Chinese sweatshops these corporations are actively supporting the Chinese regime both in its foreign policy and its economy.
Remember the Apple 1984 ad? Now imagine the runner throwing handfuls of dollar bills at Big Brother instead.
That ad aired in 1984. Apple was nowhere near as profitable at the time as it is today.
This is the definition of a hypocrite. I see in your comments an attempt for seemingly logically sound conclusions that stem from unsubstantiated aphorisms. "Corporations don't hold beliefs", "Morality is for people" not corporations.
Just because a corporation is made up from a group of people doesn't magically make it unable to hold any values. I would argue that it does hold values, values that are shaped by the people working there and the society in which it operates: Profit-seeking institutions don't have morality because they are made up of profit-seeking people in a profit-seeking society.
I would expect your comment to be a prelude to why the capitalist model isn't working, why values are being eroded and eclipsed by the the need for profit, yet you stop short.
Its not so much that you or I have not figured this out; it is something which apparently works because a significant group of people have not figured this out; they're falling for it.
Leaving this source and reference to Citizens United to hopefully help lift the conversation and help people understand the rights of corporations within the United States.
https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-...
Do corporations have a deeper responsibility besides enriching shareholders?
I think it is more accurate to qualify this. Corporations have been ruled by the US Supreme Court to hold many of the same rights as people. It's also important to give that decision some context. Polls since Citizens United have shown a majority of people in the US oppose the Court's decision in that case. Just a couple I found quickly poking around:
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-28/bloomberg...
- https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4455238/campaignf...
Hong Kong? That might actually require a bit of financial risk and negative publicity (at least in China). Now that real money is involved? “Our company believes the best way to support change in China is to do business there [...and keep our mouths shut].
It may have a vocal (majority?) support, but it’s still a very divisive issue.
It’s probably better to not raise any flag, unless you really mean it and genuinely want to support it.
Interesting.
Companies prefer to not be in the news. So what they do is seek out the mainstream and align itself to it.
BLM was not mainstream 3 months ago, so companies remained quiet.
Now, not showing support for BLM runs the risk of unfavorable PR. So they put out a low risk statement.
I think what we're seeing is a case of "minority rule" [2].
[1] https://www.ccn.com/7-companies-you-should-renounce-if-you-s...
[2] https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3663
So it's not much of a minority anything.
https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1277783532182671361?lang...
Mind you, Stripe has no real vested interest in China so that's probably why, but at least it's something.
Edit: Also, with the pace at which China is eroding Hong Kong's freedoms, the Great Firewall expanding to Hong Kong can't be that far off. Once Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. are also banned in Hong Kong, maybe then they'll have an opinion.
[1] https://www.inkstonenews.com/tech/linkedin-says-profile-poli...
Don't you think that C-levels of all of them were previously dying to get into China, and were ready to do anything?
On my memory, Google's advisers were all over Kremlin, coaching the regime in "internet media operations" in 2005-2008, teaching them how to hound opposition online, and doing psyops style public opinion manipulation, while inventing silly lies about the nature of their collaboration. This is a close as it gets to treason.
But here is it in basics:
Russian opposition was completely dominating the Internet at the time, before around 2005, a complete opposite of the picture on the TV, and fake opinion polls.
Kremlin was not happy, and went straight to the Internet's "kingmaker" — Google (or maybe it was the other way around?) Publicly it was to get its officers "taught" about internet media, but the writing on the wall was way more obvious.
At around late 2005, Google announces them "optimising their algorithms against abuse," and within weeks opposition's websites start to disappear from Google one after another. Google obviously claim "we did not hardcode anything," but simply rearranging the word order in search was enough to expose them doing that.
At the same time, we saw a wave of very weird adsense political ads on sites associated with opposition, and a wave of exhilarating pro-Putin drivel in Western media, clearly suggesting they got some Western spin masters on their side now.
In my personal experience Meduza articles are near the top for some topics and several years ago Dozhd was popular as well, also sometimes I get links to opposition LJ blogs. Also there was a large shift to Telegram channels from traditional websites.
> ...
> treason
In the case of China, doesn't the US government in some ways encourage this? I forget the colloquial name for the "policy" (if you can call it that, because I don't think it's codified into law), but isn't the idea that if the US shares some of the fruits of capitalism and liberal democracy with China, the people of their country may follow suit?
You don't share liberal democracy by teaming up with rogue regimes against it.
Here's an actual story about Google and China: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-g...
Google quit China for 6 years, tried to go back, got outed again and shut down again.
See the recent WSJ piece: "Facebook, Twitter, Google Face Free-Speech Test in Hong Kong" (https://redd.it/hkw6yh)
Supporting BLM or LGBTQ+ Equality costs them nothing, even if you go beyond a PR gesture. You can put Black and LGBTQ people on your board and in corporate leadership positions and it will not have it negatively impact your bottom line in any measurable way. Maybe equalizing salaries would impact the bottom line but not by a significant amount.
However, by (rightly) calling out Chinas numerous human rights abuses you risk being shut out from China. That directly impacts your bottom line the way putting a Black Ivy League grad rather than a White Ivy League grad on your board does not.
Same logic applies regarding ICE contracts. Talking about how great immigrants are costs you nothing. But refusing to do business with alphabet agencies that terrorize and inhumanely interns them impacts your bottom line.
People love to harp about how corporations are amoral and are only obligated to follow the law and create value for their shareholders. If you adopt this worldview then don’t be surprised if companies start doing business with tyrants.
Companies don’t have values, people have values.
Many people think of companies as if they’re people because that’s how they’re presented in consumer media, and many US laws treat them as entities similar to people. But they aren’t people.
The supply and logistics chain that manufactures car seat headrests and transports them from Taiwan to Los Angeles does not have an opinion or a moral stance on any issue that you care about. It’s a bunch of factories and different forms of freight transportation.
The directors of Google have not made a statement on Uighur in China, etc.
Hong Kong is "over there" and these companies do not have a large customer base there. China on the other hand is a monstrous potential market that they all salivate over accessing, but to do so they must suck up to the CCP.
Not hard to understand...
I don't have any special insight into their motivations. But aren't the consequences very different? As far as I understand it, if western companies publicly go against the Chinese government the only change they will get will be being kicked out of the country and being replaced with a local competitor.
I'm skeptical about corporate activism too, I just don't like the idea that intentionally picking totally losing battles should be some kind of standard. Even in a real military conflict it's reasonable to avoid that.
I see no inconsistency here that companies are responding in manner agreeable to groups holding political power in both cases.
But somehow, this doesn't seem to be the case.
Is it just greed, or am I missing something?
"I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. The example of great and pure characters is the only thing that can produce fine ideas and noble deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and always tempts its owners irresistibly to abuse it. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus, or Gandhi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?"
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=Y_9kDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT37&ots=...
They motivate their selfish actions, to others but also to themselves (Motivated Reasoning) with noble sounding arguments. Our brains are very good at coming up with those.
Once you understand and accept this, you can process the world on a higher level.
The hardest part is seeing when you do this yourself.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that (mentally healthy) humans are pretty capable of empathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
> They motivate their selfish actions, to others but also to themselves (Motivated Reasoning) with noble sounding arguments
You are claiming that selfishness is the only driver but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning goes both ways.
Besides, why do you refer to people as "they"? Are you a bot?
Just like how many small businesses are forced to put up signs supporting BLM and signs saying they are minority owned and asking to not be looted. Because there is an implicit threat of being destroyed if you do not support BLM.
I think they are more aligned with the classical liberalism which doesn't seem to find much support these days.
Claiming the CCP and BLM are on the same page would be comical if I wasn't so sure you were serious.
I was lucky enough to read about china in university and read 3 different books about Mao for varying perspectives. What is happening in the US is strikingly similar to the cultural revolution. Making "anti progress" people kowotow to the revolution, taking away their means of livelihoods. Wait till these people start saying that anyone with a slightly different opinion than the revolution is a racist and needs to be "reeducatted", and long for a social credit system similar to china.
The CCP also didn't start with the goal of oppressing people. It started with the goal of ending century long oppression of chinese peasants at the hands of the ruling elites. If you read Mao's little red book, he even makes some arguments against censorship.
Certainly the Cultural Revolution was way way worse. And yes it brings to mind certain similarities for sure. Taking away livelihoods without due process is bad. Being put to death is worse.
Current events do bring to my mind certain aspects of "self-criticism" [1]. As an observation, I'm thinking of the other HN front page post [2] about de-escalating. I'm not on twitter so maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Apparently if I tweet something wrong, it might explode virally and I might lose my livelihood... and the solution is to de-escalate (maybe with some tool twitter might helpfully provide) by apologizing and learning that there's still a lot to learn, to deeply admit the mistake, and listen deeply and thoughtfully, and to be reeducated on what's wrong with what I thought.
Another aspect brought to mind is "struggle session" [3], "a form of public humiliation and torture that was used ... during the Cultural Revolution". Certainly what happened in CR is absolutely way worse. What happens on twitter and elsewhere online do bring to mind certain aspects I've observed... the public humiliation and shaming, mobilizing the masses online, group of people accusing another 'privileged group or person, revisiting past mistakes.
There are indeed interesting similarities to compare and contrast though.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23734535 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
If you're willing to learn, you may want to look up what Patrisse Cullors has to say about her own BLM movement. I feel sorry that you think this is comical.
(Some people in the movement do self-identify as Marxist, yes; so what? That's a convenient way of avoiding looking at their actual politics.)
(I went wait what at first, but I guess the communists were already a thing in the 1830's, so it makes sense educated people would've been familiar with them)
https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/hundley/hundley.html#hund7
> "Now, as every well-informed person knows, the fact is indisputable, and has often been boasted of by the infidel press, that anti-slavery sentiments were first propagated by the ultra socialists and communists--those miserable sans culottes, who, during the memorable French Revolution, raised the cry of Liberté, Fraternité et Egalité, and in the madness of their drunken folly enthroned a nude harlot in the Temple of Justice as the goddess Reason, the object of their admiration and worship. At that time England and Massachusetts were virtuously engaged in supplying the slave-marts of the world with cargoes fresh from Guinea and Loango, and our Northern divines had not the least suspicion that the Bible condemned slavery. But, sansculotteism being quelled in France, soon found a foothold in Exeter Hall, and thence spread to the United States. For a long time the clergy resisted the storm of radical ideas, but being only men like the rest of us, and having an eye to benefices, calls, surprise-parties, and the like, as well as "itching ears" to catch the sweet voices of the rabble, they have at last almost surrendered in a body in the Free States, and now seek to lead in the new crusade ..."
> " Already, we repeat, this terrible question is being mooted in secret conclave; and should the time ever come when it shall be mooted openly--when loudmouthed and earnest men, fresh from the people, shall bestride Faneuil Hall, bawling for an equal and exact distribution to every mechanic of whatever craft, to every operative of whatever mills, to every laborer of whatever grade--bawling, we say, for an equal and exact distribution to the workmen of the net proceeds of their combined labor; and denouncing in the same breath pampered capitalists, as so many lordlings growing rich on the earnings of the moiling and toiling poor, reaping where they have not sown, and gathering where they have not scattered; upon what plausible pretext will you, Sir, then seek to gainsay them? You will have none. Dumb and quaking with fear you would be constrained to acquiesce in their logic; for they would only use in their own behalf the identical arguments you have assiduously tried to impress upon their minds for ten years and more, in order to persuade them to interfere in the affairs of their neighbors."
^F "socialist" for more of the sort. Hundley would've hated 140 characters.
These days the french have moved on; they're even going for Liberté, Sororité et Egalité. What horror! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls_nVMZK3rM
“We’re trained Marxists.” - Patrisse Cullors, BLM Co-Founder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEUbSzOTZ8 (1.5 min video in her own words)
In the UK the veil has started to lift. BLM-the-organizations are increasingly recognized as anti-capitalist, again based in their own words.
To quote (black) Columbia scholar McWhorter: "black people in the US are 2.5 times more likely to be poor, and they are 2.5 times more likely to be murdered by police."
Highly recommend to take an hour and watch him for example being interviewed by Coleman Hughes (black, Columbia U scholar) or on the Glenn Loury (black, Brown U scholar) podcast.