The documentary film “The Corporation,” released in 2003 and directed by the Canadian filmmaker Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, discusses the phenomenon of modern corporations, i.e., large legal companies, the goal of which is to make a profit. Interestingly enough, at the legal level, corporations are treated as people who have rights and obligations. What is more, “The Corporation” promotes the idea that if a firm were a real person, it would be mentally ill and psychopathic. This inference of the film’s creators is based on the fact that corporations are not capable of empathy, and the pursuit of their mercantile interests drives their actions.
At this point, one could argue that a corporation is closer to a state than to a person. According to An-Na’im Na (2009), a state is a “centralized, hierarchical” organization that is “differentiated into separate institutions and organs with their specialized functions” (p. 86). Indeed, commonly, corporations have a president and consist of multiple departments, just like the government structure of a nation is comprised of the legislative, judiciary, and executive bodies. Despite this, it is essential to notice that the comparison of corporations to people does not mean that they are equal. As Kirsch (2014) puts it, “corporations do not have the same rights as natural persons or citizens,” and this legal concept of corporate personhood is needed to enable corporations to “make and enforce contracts on behalf of their investors” (p. 207). Nevertheless, it is curious that corporations, under some circumstances, take a state’s responsibility.
“The Corporation” provides the case of Pfizer Inc.’s subsidized housing and investment into the security of the subway in Brooklyn. The concern of Pfizer with public safety is not philanthropy or charity work. Instead, in Brooklyn, Pfizer’s chemical plant is located and, hence, the pharmaceutical corporation has a reason to take care of this area. Nevertheless, the question of why this is done by the commercial company and not by the government remains topical.
In this regard, it is necessary to refer to Desai’s (2013) article. In this paper, Desai (2013) argues that corporations could not be seen as purely commercial entities. Instead, they undertake policies that target political issues and, hence, overlap with ones of the government (Desai, 2013). More precisely, these policies might include the protection of minority rights, eradication of poverty, and illiteracy. Such a change could be explained by the fact that any company’s public image has a strong correlation with its profit. Therefore, corporations are concerned with social issues because, for them, it is a chance to attract more consumers and increase public loyalty to the brand.
To conclude, the topic of the state is examined in the documentary film “The Corporation” rather effectively. Besides, the previously mentioned issue that corporations frequently take the responsibilities of the government is illustrated by several examples in the movie. One of the examples in the case of Pfizer and public security in Brooklyn and the second example is the privatization of public water services during the Cochabamba Water War that lasted four months from December 1999 to April 2000. Still, it might be suggested that these two examples are not enough to cover the topic. It would be interesting to know more examples of how corporations take the responsibilities of the government and what are the costs and benefits of such actions.
References
An-Na’im Na, A. A. (2009). Islam and the secular state. Harvard University Press. DOI: 10.4159/9780674033764
Desai, D. R. (2013). Speech, Citizenry, and the Market: A Corporate Public Figure Doctrine. Minnesota Law Review, 98, 455-508.
Kirsch, S. (2014). Imagining corporate personhood. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 37(2), 207-2017.