Share
Email This Page
add comment

BP and the Perils of Corporate Citizenship

Print
Tuesday, 15 June 2010 17:31
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)

 

 

BP: It's Not a Contest Between the US and Britain;
It's a Contest Between Citizenship Interests and Shareholder Interests

his from today's Wall Street Journal:

In a letter sent Sunday to U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson, BP said it expects to have the capacity to capture between 40,000 and 53,000 barrels of oil a day by the end of June. That compares with 15,000 barrels a day now, out of a flow of 20,000 to 40,000 barrels scientists estimate are coming from the well.

BP, which said further enhancements will increase the collection capacity to as high as 80,000 barrels a day by mid-July, submitted its latest plan after Mr. Watson, the federal government's second-in-command for the spill response, told the company Friday its previous plan was insufficient and gave BP a 48-hour deadline to come up with a revised approach.

Mr. Watson said in a statement Monday that "BP is now stepping up its efforts to contain the leaking oil," noting that the new plan's call for collecting 50,000 barrels of oil by the end of June is two weeks earlier than the previous timeline.

But the Journal isn't telling the truth. BP is not capable of writing a letter or "saying" anything, "submitting" anything, or "stepping up its efforts."

You see, BP is not a person.

Like any other corporation, BP is a collection of contracts. The collection includes employment contracts - with people who are paid to be executives, with others who are expert in how to plug holes a mile below the surface of the Gulf, and with lots of workers. There are contracts with BP's creditors, who expect to be paid on time. There are contracts with numerous suppliers, with other companies like Halliburton, with the owners of tankers. And there are contracts with the U.S. government, which has leased part of the Gulf to BP for drilling.

At the center of this web of contracts are BP's shareholders, who legally own BP. That means they own BP's assets - oil reserves under land or ocean bed that BP as a corporation is entitled to, its physical capital (rigs, tankers, and so on), and its financial assets, which amount to tens of billions of dollars.

BP's shareholders (including pensioners who have shares of pension funds, small investors who own shares in mutual funds, and major investors, all over the world) are interested in only one thing - maximizing the value of their shares. Over the last month and a half, these shareholders have got clobbered. Some have sold out to other investors who believe BP's share values will rise. Others are holding on in the hope that they will.

It's impossible for BP to commit to doing anything because BP is not a human being capable of making commitments. BP's executives (like Tony Hayward) work for BP's shareholders. They can be replaced by BP's shareholders if BP's shareholder aren't satisfied with their performance. Or, more likely, BP's shareholders can sell out to major investors who will then replace BP's executives if they don't like the job they're doing.

It doesn't matter if Tony Hayward is called to the White House. It doesn't matter that President Obama says he'd like to fire him. Hayward's first responsibility is to BP's shareholders.

Some Americans are also be BP shareholders, but their interests as U.S. citizens aren't represented in their roles as shareholders. Their citizenship interests are represented by our government, headed by the President.

As citizens, we want the hole in the Gulf plugged up as fast as possible, we want the spill contained, and we want everything cleaned up and damages paid - no matter how much it costs BP's shareholders. But if we're BP shareholders, we want to minimize all such expenditures - including our long-term liabilities.

Get it? There's no conflict between Britain and the United States. The conflict is between two kinds of interests - shareholder interests and citizen interests.

And unless or until citizenship interests predominate in the Gulf - unless or until BP's shareholders are forced by law to part with their assets to ensure the safety of the American public - shareholder interests will come first. That's why it's so important for the Administration (and, if necessary, Congress) to take steps to put BP America under temporary receivership, establish an escrow fund of at least $10 billion that BP must pay into, and whatever else is necessary to trump shareholder interests.

 

Open Article On Originating Site

Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," and his most recent book, "Supercapitalism." His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

 

Comments  

 
+16 # Guest 2010-06-15 20:29
You didn't mention the sea creatures that depend on clean water for survival. Nor did you mention the millions of people who depend on the "seafood" for dinner.

of course there are the people who work the oil and depend on those jobs for their family's dinner.

This is a really, really far-reaching disaster of many, many dimensions. It didn't really need to happen.
 
 
+17 # Guest 2010-06-15 20:59
Now it has come to light that engineers who work for BP warned the executives that this rig was a threat and a danger but this advice was ignored.
Tony Hayward should have listened and taken action before the blow up and deaths to humans and nature. This was his duty to his shareholders and his company.
 
 
+11 # Guest 2010-06-15 23:27
We shouldn't do things that we are not capable or prepared to repair. We are playing with nature, we are playing with people's lives and futures. What are we doing messing with things we do not understand? Make BP pay for every bit of what they have done, and prohibit any further action of this kind until we are certain of what we are doing (and are capable of fixing our mistakes). That is, capable and ready to take personal and corporate responsibility.
 
 
+7 # Guest 2010-06-15 23:34
We might be advised to keep in mind that the business of corporations is to make money (for their stockholders) and thus they should be trusted to do just that. It's their job!

It is the job of our government to keep an eye on them and make sure they do a proper and safe and proper job. This has to be done on behalf of us citizens. It's called "supervision" or "inspecting" and demanding accountability. When this doesn't work properly as when the corporations buy their way out of this supervision and accountability, we end up with financial chaos (our banks and wallstreet) and oil disasters--which essentially are our own fault since we are responsible for our own government's action. Or are supposed to be!

We turn our backs on the corporations, then like the fox will do, the chickens will become dinner!
 
 
+11 # Guest 2010-06-16 01:32
BP and its shareholders who own, operate and control the contractual engagements and actions have repeatedly violated the laws governing and regulating the operations of their production, and as a result of those violations of numerous laws and regulations and many different occasions, Bp and it shareholders are controlling a "criminal enterprise" and that should fall under the RICO act. So BP is not a person, but it is operating as a criminal enterprise. 11 recent homicides, not to mention the multitude of other regulatory violations, all criminal actions under the "guise" of a non=person person. Mafia comes to mind... So arrest and cease all the corporate shareholders, contractors and employee's, cease all their assets, jointly and severely and treat BP "Oil Mafia" as the criminal enterprise it is.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-16 17:40
I like it! A refreshing point of view - though I doubt it will ever come to pass.
 
 
-2 # Guest 2010-06-16 01:34
Corporate entities do have responsibilitie s and liabilities to the countries and citizenry affected by their products... so your point that Hayward has no responsibility doesn't hold up. In representing BP he has as much responsibility to those affected as shareholders as to those affected by the Corporation's actions. Your comments sound more like those of BP PR-media, aimed more at playing around with words for appearance rather than to resolve the serious situation caused by BP's actions. You make it sound like BP or any Corporation has responsibility only to shareholders and no one else impacted by their activities.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-06-16 18:56
You missed Reich's point.

Yes corporations SHOULD have responsibilitie s to the society which permits them to exist legally. But the article's point is they cannot ACT as individuals, because they are NOT individuals, and all language to the contrary is, ... well ... silly -- and a lie.

They want to act like "persons" when it is to their benefit, but cannot ACT as persons as they have no mind, no thoughts, no desires, no will, no breath ... Whatever will and actions they seem to exhibit are collective actions imposed by the more powerful of the shareholders (yet paid for by all) and attributed to a false entity (the "person").

It is a form of collective mini-dictatorships with common interests that dresses itself up as "freedom" by those who benefit from it -- and who can afford the usurped mass media to continue to spread the lie... What BS! Corporate personhood MUST END if humanity and the planet are to survive.
 
 
+6 # Guest 2010-06-16 01:57
An excellent primer on the difference between the citizenship of individuals and the conceptual, theoretical 'citizenship' of legal entities like corporations. An excellent explanation of why corporations can't be citizens because of the inherent conflict of interest between actual, individual, human citizens and stockholders.

Thank you, Professor Reich!
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-06-16 02:19
That many barrels of oil per day times price of a barrel means this single well produces BILLIONS in gross revenue per year. If our beloved politicians from both sides of aisle meant what they said the past 40 years about energy independence then why was a foreign national ever leased these rights in the first place?
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-06-16 03:08
A hundred and fifty years ago when Corporation as a business form was instituted it was believed to be for the good of the people but since then sleezy representative lawyers began to work on a packed Supreme Court ans as time evolved so also did the rules of the "GAME". because that is what it became as those very lawyers grew rich along with Corporate CEOs. The CEOs realized they could not form a UNION so they did the very next BEST thing they formed an ASSOCIATION to enhance their positions which were becoming emperor in scope ..Because most CEOs and lawyers are now on the Boards of other Corporations they formed another called the ASSOCIATION OF BOARD MEMBERS Thus with all bases covered they began to fill their pockets...When a CEO is question about HUGE remunerations being received they are quick to point out that it was the BOARD who authorized the the NEW gifts of SAlaries, Stock options, and so many perks that rossevelt must be turning over in his grave when he sees this robbery.
 
 
+12 # Guest 2010-06-16 03:44
Reich is exactly the kind of Democrat I wanted in the white house. His absence - and the absence of anyone else who isn't religiously devoted to the corporatist agenda - is reflected in the endlessly right-wing decisions made by Obama since he picked Bankruptcy Joe Biden as his running mate.

After 18 months in power, it seems clear that Obama is also a corporatist ideologue. No wonder he put that oil salesman, Salazar, in charge of our energy policy.

And Arno Duncan in charge of education.

And Geithner, Summers and Bernanke in charge of the economy.

And Gates in charge of war.

No wonder every social problem is 'solved' by corporate welfare, while the Dems protect the predators. These men were never anything more than corporate bagmen.

There isn't one person in the White House I would vote for willingly, if given a chance. I don't vote for Republicans, even if they wear democratic drag.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-06-16 19:38
...and he is precisely the "kind of Democrat" the Dem leadership will NOT give space to, except enough limited room to continue to lure "progressives" into NOT building a true anti-corporate alternative.

Just keep 'em hangin' on inside the DP is the idea, ... and there will NEVER be a Resistance to the REAL enemies of Democracy: not the OUTsiders who dress funny, but those INside the US, in corporate parties & in Congress, or in front of cameras & microphones who shred our Constitution, who stifle free speech & thought while listening to your conversations. Those who put profit & war over real healthcare, real education, real security & a clean environment.

Wake up. The corporate role of the Democratic Party is to secure a public narrative that engages thinking & caring Americans emotionally, yet DISarms them politically; keeps them passive, or busy with emails & phone calls & "hope" -- ANYthing but identifying problems, finding solutions -- or ORGANIZING to change things.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-06-16 04:19
And how lost this is on so many free-market advocates.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-06-16 04:20
To maximise shareholder value, companies need to develop processes and management styles which are sustainable. Clearly the push for profits above all else is not sustainable as we see with the Gulf Explosion. Can we, as a corporate society connect the dots and change our own culture to one which is more amenable to both real profits and social responsibility? btw How much compensation did Exxon eventually pay for the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska?
Also, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a corporation can be viewed as a "person" with regards to free speech. Greed and fear are the primary values dominant in business, it is incumbent upon all business leaders to change to a more equitable, and hence, more sustaining model.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-06-16 12:11
For much of modern history, was no difference between church and state and the Pope was The Decider. Henry VIII changed that a bit making himself head of both church and empire. Still, there was no difference. The U.S. rejected that model and instead made business and state as co-deciders. We need a separation of corporations and state written into the Constitution. In spite of the popularity of the idea, it means that our government as it is would have to make it possible. How likely are they to do that? Not until our people are better informed and educated. That will not happen until our media are reformed.
 
 
+6 # Elessar 2010-06-16 04:24
Clearly BP has functioned for years in a privileged, protected status thanks to Cheney's oil deregulation, and assumed they could flout even the minimal regs they were still under. Over and over they placed speed and profit ahead of worker safety and the environment.

Eleven workers are dead, countless businesses and families are suffering catastrophic losses in jobs, devalued real estate and poor health: and the environmental impact hasn't even begun to register.

BP has consistently lied about the scope and attempted to cover it up, even by using 100's of thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals to keep the oil in deep water instead of visibly impacting the beaches.

Death for profit: conspiracy to cover up... If BP wishes citizenship status, let them pay a citizen's consequences for Murder One: lock down the company for 20 to life, so it can never harm another person.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-06-16 08:06
Elessar: You missed the point. Energy exploration, development production and transportation is not an issue associated with any one administration or viewpoint. When Congressman George Miller (D-CA) held hearings following the Exxon Valdex incident the summary statement was that 'regulators,' state and federal, were in bed with the industry. What followed was allowing BP p.l.c to merge with AMOCO, then ARCO and the lifting of the ban on the export of Alaskan oil. These items occurred during the Clinton Administration. The sole beneficiary of the lifting of the ban was BP p.l.c.
The impacted states have accepted billions of dollars over the years as a result of big oil. Why do you think that Barack H. Obama selected Ray Mabus, former governor of Mississippi, to chair the Gulf Coast committe on restoration? They needed an inside player who knew the score.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-06-16 09:14
Outstanding post, Elessar! I'm a lifelong environmentalis t, so I've cried for all the animals and ecosystems who will bear the brunt of this catastrophe. But as you note, 11 people died on that rig, and there's hardly been a mention of them.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-06-16 04:41
Hayward has been working with the intent to recover the potential asset, in the name of the bottom line and perhaps, the shareholders or his self preservation. i contend that the estimates for the leakage have been inaccurate to low ball their ultimate liability. Otherwise, there is no measurable cost to the ecosystem from BP's standpoint only the cost of cleanup. If there were a similar blowout in the North Sea the response would be to get the thing either capped and syphoned with no leakage or plug the damn thing! Somehow, the shareholders indicate that neither is the better fix so the oil keeps on entering the Gulf. The real penalty should be against the shareholders for allowing management to drag their feet and so may face a total loss if BP is forced into bankruptcy. Obama's threats amount to nothing more than a supercilious joke. If he goes the wrong way the taxpayer will wind up with the bill. At this point who really thinks the deep water plume can be cleaned up? NOT ME.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-06-16 04:53
Simple answers to complex questions are antithetical.

Simple minds likewise.

I don't know the answer{s}; So I leave it to those who MAY.

Too many Sarah Palins advising how to do it.

This isn't kindergarten stuff.

Racism isn't any help. Which is where so much of these opinions come from.

There's a Black Man in the White House;
get over it and let the man do his job.

Do your job and back him...the problem is ours TOO.

OR, GET OUTV OF THE WAY.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-16 05:27
I may be dense, but I didn't know anyone ever thought it was between Britain and US. Help me understand that part.
However, it's extremely pertinent to point out the conflicts of interest experienced by the US citizens who are also BP shareholders and that the President's responsibility is to the citizens, not the shareholders. It's hard to fathom there's not a way to plug that hole.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-18 05:50
Quote:
President Obama's criticisms of BP - and in particular its chief executive Tony Hayward - have been consistently blunt.

And some UK businessmen have accused the president's team of using "anti-British" language when discussing the spill.

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/politics/10300082.stm

Apparently, there were some British businessmen that thought it was criticism of them. They're probably freaked over some Americans talking about receivership. Personally, I think we should be talking about nationalizing every oil and gas company operating in the U.S. I don't believe any of them would have been prepared for this and it's sheer luck that it didn't happen to one of the others.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-06-16 05:51
While BP is not a person, organizations each have their own personality, culture and patterns of behavior. "Corporate culture" is more than an abstract concept. It is an observable fact -- whether we're talking about a petroleum company or the corner store.
BP is an exceedingly wealthy organization. Its particularly toxic corporate culture helped it get that way.
Jason Leopold's 6/15/10 Truthout expose of BP's pattern of criminal negligence on Alaska's environmentally sensitive North Slope adds to our knowledge of how BP got so rich. As Mr Reich points out so clearly, it is BP shareholders who have gained.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-06-16 06:02
Robert Reich,
I couldn't agree with you more. Now, will you walk the talk and start a political movement? I will be one of many that will follow you. Along with several activist groups, I, also, am already doing all I can, but you have government, political and economic insight. And, unlike current government insiders, you are now outside government and, hopefully, have tenure at UCB; you are free to talk.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-06-16 06:03
Time to bust up BP. Deprive BP shareholders of the financial rewards they have reaped from BP's rape of North America and its people -- ranging from Alaska to Texas (2005 refinery explosion killing 15) to the Gulf of Mexico 2010.
BP's apparent credo, based on the evidence: "Production and profit over protection of people and the planet -- always."
I believe this credo is so pervasive throughout BP management, top to bottom, that the enterprise cannot be reformed. Instead, to protect us all, it must be busted up and sold NOT to highest bidders but to SAFEST bidders, i.e., companies with the BEST record of human and environmental protection in the petroleum industry. No others need apply.
Let the shareholders of "best steward" companies benefit in place of those who have been profiting from the BP criminals they have supported with their capital.
BUST UP BP.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-16 07:48
As you are aware, BP p.l.c is an entity based in London. One item I would offer is this: The Deepwater site is some 50 miles from America, our shoreline. The Law of the Sea Convention, the international tool, could provide some leverage if the United States of America had signed on, as did some 160 nations. we did not. Hence, we lack leverage. What we have in bad public relations, but that will end when the next event occurrs somewhere else. were you on board when the opportunity came forth for our nation to become a signatory to the Law of the Sea Convention? That was the missed opportunity. Who do we have to blame?
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-06-16 06:32
why not take away the profit and do what most other countries have done... sieze the assetts and kick them out. nationalization was the only remedy for England, Norway, Mexico, Venezuela, and the arab countries. and they used the profit to create a better country for the common citizens.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-06-16 07:42
Diane: Nationalization might seem like a good idea, until you grasp what nationalization means. A more functional approach is to keep the natural resources for the people and when the times come to develop, add value, to hire a developer, pay the developer and take the production for the benefit of the people. When you hire you can also fire. The lease sale approach to developing natural resources is the flaw, a throwback from a by-gone era. Under any circumstances, America needs to have a very large dialogue about its future and what to do at this departure. A 'blue ribbon' commission will be a failure. What we need is a grassroots discussion made up of people that look like America, with respect to demographics.
 
 
-1 # Guest 2010-06-16 12:52
I am sorry, but if you think that Venezuela, Mexico and the Arab countries have created better countries for their common citizens, you are sadly mistaken. Pay them a visit and you'll see why.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-06-16 06:39
Robert Reich is so smart and so right. It's too bad that Obama doesn't listen to him.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-06-16 08:23
I just heard a guy call into Thom H that hit it, we needed something like FDR's call out of the gilded set or JFK coming down seriously hard on US Steel - instead we got a call to pray.

He also should have come out with a detailed path to mobilize for green energy, like we mobilized for WWII, it's where we need to go ASAP and it will create tons of jobs.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-06-16 09:05
Once again I am confused. In a letter sent Sunday to U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson, BP said it expects to have the capacity to capture between 40,000 and 53,000 barrels of oil a day by the end of June. That compares with 15,000 barrels a day now, out of a flow of 20,000 to 40,000 barrels scientists estimate are coming from the well.

BP, which said further enhancements will increase the collection capacity to as high as 80,000 barrels a day by mid-July.
How can "they" capture up to 80,000 barrels a day if only 20,000 to 40,000 barrels a day are benn thrown into the Gulf of Mexico?
As far as corporations having the same rights as a person-SHAME ON OUR STUPIDITY!
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-16 11:19
Good points. One more nail into the un regulated free market capitalism we have been brainwashed into thinking is the cure for everything, AKA, market forces fix all.

Well I challenge the free market to fix this catastrophe caused by criminal negligence.

BTW. I would say Tony Hayward has failed miserably if his job is to protect shareholder interests and values.

And, why do we keep calling this thing a 'spill'.

It is a "BLOW OUT" of an oilfield whose size is unknown.

Using the word 'spill' is a semantic gimmick that allows our brain-lets to unconsciously minimize the scale of environmental (our food chain) damage.

Let's call it what it is.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-16 13:49
all those idiots who holler about deregulate and privatize everything... let the corporate beast do what they will...forgot about the nasty corruption we have been facing in the us of a. These companies would render the planet extinct for the corporate greed, and the right wing does not want a government big enough to police them.
 
 
+1 # PatriotPaul 2010-06-16 19:42
Since the Supreme Court recently ruled that Corporations (domestic and foreign) are equal to us U.S. citizens when it comes to elections I say we hold anyone in the corporation who was criminally negligent accountable in the exact same way you or I would be.

If we caused the 11 deaths and/or the environmental calamity we would be personally bankrupted and sent to prison for life. The same should hold for the CEO and Board members if found negligent. How about that Mrrs. "Law and Order", Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts?

Paul Harris
Author, "Diary From the Dome, Reflections on Fear and Privilege During Katrina:
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-18 02:46
760+ regulatory violations... BP is looking more and more like a well organized criminal enterprise profiting through deliberate misconduct.

When fines are less costly than adherence to policies and profit is greater by those actions of violating regulations or remaining in non compliance, why would any profit geared and motivated corporation expend more to make less?

I am all for further deterring these types of profiting mentality through the use of "asset forfeitures". Any assets or increase of assets gained while in violation or as a direct result of those violations should be seized. Rewarding continued noncompliance to laws regulating any industry should not ever be profitable.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-19 09:53
As if the conflict between shareholders and citizens were not already bad enough, the recent Supreme Cort decision to lift all limits on corporate campaign gifts practically ensures the minimizing of citizens' interests.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-06-19 11:37
This disaster may be the perverse 'opportunity' we've needed to finally educate the public about 'artificial persons' -corporations. It is most critical now that they were given the right to influence elections, when they clearly have conflicts of interest. Corporate personhood has been fought for decades with the usual reaction to troublemakers (war resisters, environmentalis ts) namely ridicule or or vilification. Go to http://www.wilpf.org for excellent history/articles from Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Doing good work since 1915!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.