Hi Belmonster

It’s good that dotherightthing.com is itself the subject of its own enquiry, so I appreciate your reply.

That said, your post confirms my position – every paragraph you write, every example you use in fact, serves my argument rather than yours, and here’s why.

You take up my claim that governments apply laws fairly and universally – that when a recycling law is passed, for example, it applies to every company, not just the one that’s being pummelled by the press or consumer groups, or indeed a site such as this one.

You point to slavery (!) to dismantle my point. Slavery was promulgated by the big corporations of the day – plantations etc – and was dismantled by government actions – not consumer uproar! How can you make such a point as an American!

You also ham-fistedly point to examples of corruption around the world as further examples of why corporations need to step in and bypass government. These barely relate to the issue, but needless to say, they are examples of where governments should be reformed, not a case for greater corporate involvement in political or social issues. If you want better government, as you perhaps may do right now given the current US administration, I hope your first instinct is to make a difference at the ballot box, not at your local Best-Buy.

You then say “The fact is, corporations do have a responsibility to “give back”. I say this as a business owner myself, and one who is very involved in philanthropic efforts in my community.”

First off, the fact that you run a business doesn’t entitle you to an enlightened opinion on such matters. Your point is the rhetorical equivalent of saying “hotdogs ARE good for you – I should know, I eat a lot of them”.

Joking aside, you can get away with being philanthropic – it sounds like your business is local, and it makes good business sense to keep your customers happy through publicising your good deeds.

But my point is a much larger one. Take this do-goodery to a global level, and it becomes a lot less clear that 1) corporations have a right to decide how the environment should be protected or whatever, and 2) that what Shell or Starbucks is doing is, in fact, sensible – canny PR that looks great but that actually does more harm than good.

I’m happy for you to watch over your local business, but I would be up in arms if you took it upon yourself to decide what was right for people who work in garment factories in India, how old the people working there should be, or how to manage a coral reef in the Philippines. These are all matters for government (yes, good government), and certainly not for a US corporation reacting to the hare-brained ideals of a bunch of West-Coast entrepreneurs.

As for Ford employing people, great! I think business is great. But I don’t want Ford doing anything other than employing people and selling cars. I didn’t vote for the Ford CEO, and his remit is Detroit, not the world.

Your Enron example is on a par with your slavery one. Yes, it shows that corporations wield power and can have very harmful effects on their employees if not managed with a modicum of respect for them. But who caught them out and punished Lay etc? Was it a bunch of undercover reporters from dotherightthing.com? No – it was their auditing firm, and the law that brought them to heal. And guess what? As a result we have new, better legislation – Sarbanes Oxley, that works to ensure the episode is never repeated – at Enron, or at any single other company in the US. Consumer outrage had nothing to do with it.

You end with a nice paean to the site: “This website is harnessing the collective opinions of the internet community – a community that is proving to be more and more savvy and better educated all the time”

Given your arguments above, I’m not so sure.

Pedrito, you’re obviously a passionate and learned individual. I think you misunderstand some of my arguments though. I don’t intend to say that it’s the job of corporations to police the world. Nor that the government should be a tool of those corporations.

Governments should be tools of the people – and I think that’s where this website comes in. It serves as a filter for all of the happy, “get this little ballerina in the picture” BS that PR machines push our way, and allows the people to submit their opinions and propogate information that may not otherwise be consumed, given the sheer volume of data available today.

In my opinion – and you’re certainly entitled to your own – this site is serving as a way for the public to police these organizations. Information is presented, reviewed, and the public can choose to act.

In the US (and yes, I wouldn’t mind a change in the current administration, I’m sad to say), we can contact our elected officials and urge them to do something through our legislative system to make changes. But we couldn’t make those calls if we were unaware of the issues in the first place. Typically, the press serves as the catalyst for these movements. Unfortunately, the press is rarely the unbiased, logical outlet that it should be. They’re in business to make money, and to capture your attention before one of the other newspapers do, so they tend to sensationalize. There is also a tendency to move en masse on a story, like a swarm of bees, further obscuring the true details.

Again, in my opinion, this site serves as a filter for that phenomenon as well.

Pedrito, your activity on this site is a good example of how it can work. You bring a wealth of knowledge, great debating skills, and a willingness to share, and you use this forum to present your opinions to the world. What better example of how this site can work?

The purpose of the site is not to be a PR tool for the big corporations. Doubtless, some of them may end up using it as such, but I still think that members will see through that. Nor is it placing any power in the hands of those corporations, or spurring them to serve as an unelected government. Rather, it serves as a way to let those corporations know that we’re watching what they do, and holding them accountable – something that may have prompted those Enron execs to act differently, had this site been around then.

Pedrito, I appreciate your comments, and the your activity on this site (though it baffles me, if you truly disagree with this site’s premise). I did want to point out, however, that your arguments would be stronger if you didn’t resort to personal attacks.

I’ve just read your reply once and I’m definitely not out to insult you. I think the force of my response is more in the argument than in anything personal, and I don’t think I go much further than your “what planet do you live on?” stance. Still, to repeat, regardless of how I want to argue my points, I certainly don’t mean to offend you. I’ll get back to you when I get a minute.

1. Make your employees feel proud of working at a firm that does good things

2. Make your customers and partners feel god about working with your firm

3. Make the world in which you sell your products/services a better place

I don’t think companies should be expected to do good, rather, it makes sense for them to do so and therefore not doing so is just bad management.

Corporations can Give Back these ways: Rent idle office space for local Indie business. Rent exec jets for Public use when NOT flying. Rent limos for Public. Host Job Fairs. Hire Dev Disabled. PR Innovations & ideas. Brainstorming Recycle goods Use excess resources & give to local non profits. Hiring Veterans Hiring over 40. Pro singles policies: Never marrieds. Combine services OK local potlucks etc among employees. Donate waste vs deter inhouse thefts due to excessess. Change buying policies Lease equip?? & more Then Its a WIN WIN for ALL.

NO excuses.