BP and the Perils of Corporate Citizenship
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.
|
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. |










Comments
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.
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.
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!
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.
Thank you, Professor Reich!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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:
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.
RSS feed for comments to this post.