Thomas d’Aquino Critiques the Film "The Corporation"

March 29, 2004

Described by the Toronto Star as an "anti-corporation rant," the Canadian-made feature documentary "The Corporation" is a vicious indictment of capitalism and of its principal instrument, the corporation. The film’s producers argue that the corporation is self-interested, amoral, deceitful and "fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a psychopath." Not long after the movie’s Canadian release in January 2004, Toronto-based Corporate Knights magazine asked Thomas d’Aquino, President and Chief Executive of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), for his perspective on the film. The following interview appears in the magazine’s Spring 2004 issue.

Question:  Why do you think “The Corporation” has struck a chord with many people?

Answer:  In part, because it speaks to people who have been adversely affected by negative economic circumstances — whether at the hands of an industrial polluter or an irresponsible employer who exploits workers.  Throughout the world, one can find many examples of both.  However, by principally targeting western-based transnational corporations, the film is seriously off the mark.  North American, European and Japanese multinationals are among the most progressive institutions.

Another reason for public skepticism about corporate activity is the record of serious ethical breaches on the part of a small number of prominent corporate leaders in recent years.  Lamentable cases such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Parmalat, and more recently Martha Stewart, have received wide public attention and in turn have resulted in appropriately harsh judicial retribution.  But the reality is that the vast majority of men and women who run businesses in Canada and the United States are honest and hard working.  “The Corporation” fails utterly to make this point and is therefore not credible.

Question:  According to the film, corporations are by their nature nasty and rapacious institutions. Do you agree?

Answer:  Certainly not.  “The Corporation” may be a propaganda success but it is an abject failure in its pretence to reflect historical accuracy.  I have studied company law as an academic discipline and I was appalled at the cavalier way in which this ingenious human creation has been portrayed.  For a scholarly, objective analysis of the company, I recommend to your readers that they delve into a recent book by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge entitled, The Company, A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea (A Modern Library Chronicles Book).  Both are veteran writers for The Economist.  Both are dedicated to telling the real story about the evolution of the corporation — both bad and good.

The truth is that the corporation has been a hugely successful instrument for wealth and job creation and the catalyst for the most important ingredient in the improvement of the human condition — the facilitation of innovation.  I would go further and argue that the corporation has had a profoundly important role in knocking down barriers and in lifting literally hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.  I also believe that it has been a powerful force in the advancement of democratization.

Question:  What about the claim that corporations control the world — everything from the food we eat to the political process?

Answer:  With the opening up of markets worldwide, especially after the fall of the Berlin wall and the demise of the Soviet Union, we have seen a massive growth in enterprise.  While this has led in some cases to excess and abuse — the effects of what I call buccaneer capitalism — the positive overall results are undeniable.  The IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, among others, have documented the benefits of market liberalization.  To argue, however, that corporations have steamrolled the state is nonsense.  The state is alive and active. 

The proportion of the economy of most countries in the world still reflects a hefty degree of government involvement.  In addition, regulations governing health, safety, the environment, taxation, trade and competition, are ever present.

 Question:  One of the film’s central assertions is that a corporation’s directors are legally required to do what is best for the company regardless of the consequences.  That sounds pretty ominous, doesn’t it?

Answer:  The film presupposes that CEOs and compliant directors will seek only to maximize profits and could care less about the economic and social consequences of their actions.  This is claptrap of the worst kind.  The producers of this film seem to be caught in a 1890s time bubble.  Companies today, especially the large enterprises targeted by “The Corporation”, discharge a wide variety of economic and social responsibilities that go well beyond the bottom line — in support of community goals, the environment, health, safety, education and the arts, to name several.  The reality is that responsible business is good business.

Question:  There is also a suggestion in the film that gold traders were jubilant when terrorists struck the World Trade Center because they were convinced that they were going to make a lot of money.

Answer:  That was among the lowest blows in the movie — a shameless and contemptible effort to create fear and loathing.  Throughout history, there have been profiteers from war, conflict and the misery of others.  But to foist this image on business as a whole was beyond the pale.

Question:  What do you make of the film’s claim that “The Corporation” is the prototypical psychopath because of what the producers suggest is its “callous unconcern for the feelings of others”, “incapacity to maintain enduring relationships”, and “reckless disregard for the safety of others”?

Answer:  The corporation as a psychopath is an absurd notion.  It is a legal entity that employs people, channels the creation of goods and services, pays taxes and provides the platform for a wide range of services including those to the community.  Frankly, I came away from the movie convinced that the producers were in fact the psychopaths!

Question:  Apart from your concerns about the film’s manipulation of the facts and its deep bias, does it have any other significant failings?

Answer:  Yes.  It does not offer a credible alternative to the corporation as an instrument for enterprise and economic development.  After suffering through more than two hours of anti-business rhetoric, one would have expected that a clever propagandist would offer viewers some form of sugar-coated alternative — perhaps even an appeal to the human curiosity about utopia.  On the contrary, it ended with a pathetic whimper.

Question:  If nothing else, don’t you admire the filmmakers’ marketing savvy?

Answer:  Yes, if you admire the techniques of Goebels and Trotsky and their ilk.  The bigger the lie, the better, and why not?  It has worked in the past, with tragic consequences of course.  But clearly the producers of “The Corporation” are disciples of the age-old dictum that “the end justifies the means”.