Popular in Law

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Law

Surrey’s Silence: Subpart F and the Swiss Subsidiary Tax that Never Was

Boston University Steven Dean

Criminal Law

Prosecuting Misdemeanors

American University Jenny Roberts

Human Rights Law

Siege Starvation: A War Crime of Societal Torture

Tufts University Tom Dannenbaum

Corporate Law

Data Valuation and Law

University of Southern California Jordan Barry

Joel Bakan on The Corporation

View more insights in Professional - Law - Corporate Law

View more figures from University of British Columbia

View the page of Joel Bakan

Read the Study

Joel Bakan revealed the modern corporation’s legal standing as a pathological lover of power and profit, changing our view of it.

Image courtesy of interviewee. February 8, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video reflects on the impact of the film and book "The Corporation" and its follow-up, "The New Corporation." The original work gained global popularity, being translated into multiple languages and widely used in law courses. The central premise is that corporations, legally compelled to act in their own self-interest, can be viewed as psychopathic institutions, as evidenced by their potential to prioritize profit over ethical considerations.

The author, who has a background in psychology, draws parallels between corporate behavior and psychopathy, emphasizing that while corporations may occasionally act for good, they often do so only when it aligns with their self-interest. This video video creates a limitation on their capacity for genuine positive action, leading to situations like greenwashing.

Documentary filmmaking emerged as an accidental path for the author, who adapted their academic insights into more accessible narratives. Both the original film and its sequel interrogate the institutional structures that drive corporate behavior, questioning their role in exacerbating social and environmental issues.

The sequel, which was directed and co-written by the author, addresses the apparent contradiction of corporations claiming to be socially responsible while continuing harmful practices. It argues that the perception of "good corporations" undermines democracy by reducing the need for regulation and allowing corporations to take over essential public services.

Overall, the text critiques the notion that corporations can be trusted to govern themselves or act in the public interest, warning that the charm of seemingly benevolent corporations can mask their inherent self-serving nature.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.075 --> 00:02.165
Film obviously did really well.

00:02.345 --> 00:04.965
It, it played across the world.

00:05.105 --> 00:08.445
It was translated in 25, 26 languages.

00:08.985 --> 00:13.645
Um, and it had a large popular response in terms of lawyers

00:13.905 --> 00:16.245
and law professors in particular.

00:16.865 --> 00:20.525
Um, it had a very positive response as well.

00:20.805 --> 00:24.685
I hear from, anecdotally, I hear from colleagues,

00:24.845 --> 00:27.485
'cause I'm a law professor, I hear from colleagues across,

00:27.905 --> 00:32.125
the world, different countries, different law schools

00:32.315 --> 00:33.605
that they use the book

00:33.625 --> 00:35.925
or they use the film in their classes.

00:37.065 --> 00:39.525
Um, it's, some of the leading

00:40.045 --> 00:42.765
textbooks on corporate law refer to the book.

00:43.425 --> 00:45.285
Um, and so, yeah, it,

00:45.505 --> 00:50.325
and the reason for that is I think it was probably one

00:50.325 --> 00:54.525
of the first times, that there was an attempt

00:54.625 --> 00:58.245
to ask the question, how is it

00:58.245 --> 01:01.525
that the central principles of corporate law,

01:01.665 --> 01:05.325
and particularly the idea that corporations always have

01:05.325 --> 01:08.645
to pursue their own self-interest, how does

01:08.645 --> 01:11.565
that legal principle land in the world?

01:11.635 --> 01:12.805
What are its impacts?

01:13.625 --> 01:18.325
Uh, and that seems to be something that a lot

01:18.325 --> 01:21.085
of lawyers and law professors, found,

01:21.215 --> 01:22.805
insightful and, and helpful.

01:23.745 --> 01:26.445
The central premise of both the film

01:26.745 --> 01:29.085
and the book, is

01:29.355 --> 01:33.245
that when you look at the fundamental principle

01:33.425 --> 01:36.965
of corporate law, in the US legal system,

01:37.185 --> 01:41.165
the UK legal system, to some extent, European legal systems,

01:41.945 --> 01:43.685
the fundamental principle is

01:43.685 --> 01:45.445
that corporations always have

01:45.445 --> 01:47.485
to act in their own best interests.

01:47.745 --> 01:52.605
So they're legally compelled to act in self-interest.

01:53.385 --> 01:57.245
And so what I did is I had done psychology

01:57.705 --> 02:01.085
as an undergrad before going to law school,

02:01.305 --> 02:03.285
and I had learned about psychopaths.

02:03.465 --> 02:07.125
And the fundamental principle of psychopaths was

02:07.235 --> 02:09.445
that they always act in their own self-interest,

02:09.475 --> 02:13.405
that they're incapable, constitutionally incapable

02:13.505 --> 02:15.085
of caring about other people.

02:15.945 --> 02:18.005
Um, and I thought, well, that's really interesting.

02:18.075 --> 02:21.525
Here we've created the corporation, we've

02:22.265 --> 02:23.725
imbued it with personhood.

02:23.795 --> 02:26.005
Legally it's deemed to be a person.

02:26.665 --> 02:30.605
It, we've given it a personality where it always has

02:30.605 --> 02:32.845
to act in its own self-interest,

02:33.295 --> 02:36.125
which is really the personality of a psychopath.

02:36.785 --> 02:40.485
Um, so the central premise is the corporation is a

02:40.485 --> 02:41.965
psychopathic institution.

02:43.825 --> 02:47.725
Now, does that mean that everything corporations do,

02:48.425 --> 02:50.005
are bad things?

02:50.345 --> 02:52.005
Not necessarily,

02:52.035 --> 02:56.325
sometimes it will be in the self-interest of a company

02:57.065 --> 02:58.845
to do good things or to at

02:58.845 --> 03:00.205
Least appear to do good things.

03:00.945 --> 03:04.805
And so we see the rise of corporate social responsibility,

03:05.245 --> 03:08.525
CSR, ESG, environmental, social

03:08.625 --> 03:11.885
and government governance, social capitalism,

03:12.095 --> 03:14.485
green capitalism, all these ideas

03:15.395 --> 03:19.885
that basically say that corporations, can

03:19.885 --> 03:21.485
and should do good things.

03:22.185 --> 03:23.445
Uh, but what I argue

03:24.505 --> 03:27.405
to some extent in the first book in film

03:27.545 --> 03:31.005
and what I pick up on, in my second book in film,

03:31.105 --> 03:33.485
the New Corporation, which are sequels

03:33.485 --> 03:36.845
and which came out in 2020, is

03:36.845 --> 03:38.925
that there's a fundamental problem here.

03:39.585 --> 03:43.965
And that is that if the corporation is legally compelled

03:43.965 --> 03:47.685
always to act in its own self-interest, then there are going

03:47.685 --> 03:51.525
to be real limits to how much good corporations can do.

03:52.505 --> 03:57.365
Uh, and basically when it's more profitable for them

03:57.585 --> 03:59.565
to do bad things and to do good things,

03:59.595 --> 04:00.725
they will do bad things.

04:01.625 --> 04:05.405
And there's also the problem that they will try to appear

04:05.465 --> 04:07.165
to be doing good things in order

04:07.165 --> 04:10.405
to serve their self-interest, when in fact they're not

04:10.625 --> 04:13.725
so greenwashing and all that kind of deception.

04:14.465 --> 04:19.085
So that fundamental contradiction in C-S-R-E-S-G

04:19.625 --> 04:23.045
is problematic, and it's even more problematic when

04:23.045 --> 04:26.285
corporations start being seen as good actors

04:26.825 --> 04:29.925
and thereby capable of doing things

04:29.925 --> 04:32.805
that governments normally do, like running schools

04:33.025 --> 04:34.045
or water systems.

04:34.345 --> 04:38.565
And so there's a way in which good corporations,

04:38.585 --> 04:41.645
or the idea of good corporations is problematic

04:41.705 --> 04:46.445
for democracy because it helps pave the way for corporations

04:46.625 --> 04:47.685
to take over roles

04:47.835 --> 04:50.125
that democratic government should be doing.

04:51.285 --> 04:55.205
I fell into documentary filmmaking completely accidentally.

04:55.605 --> 04:57.565
I was in the middle of,

04:58.405 --> 05:02.165
a scholarly piece on the nature of corporations.

05:02.785 --> 05:05.085
Uh, and I met at a social event, well,

05:05.085 --> 05:06.125
not really a social event.

05:06.125 --> 05:10.125
It was a funeral actually, of a mutual, mutual friend,

05:10.185 --> 05:12.605
the filmmaker, mark Akbar,

05:13.095 --> 05:15.445
whose documentary films I was aware of.

05:15.545 --> 05:17.405
And I liked a great deal.

05:17.785 --> 05:18.805
And we started talking

05:18.905 --> 05:21.565
and I was telling him about this book that I was writing,

05:21.665 --> 05:23.605
and he said that would make, a good film

05:23.625 --> 05:25.365
and one thing led to another.

05:25.865 --> 05:29.525
Um, and we were working on the corporation.

05:30.145 --> 05:32.165
Um, and you know, the,

05:32.425 --> 05:34.805
the thing about both documentary films

05:34.985 --> 05:38.765
and also writing for popular audiences, which the books

05:39.155 --> 05:42.885
that are the basis of my films are, are that they're not

05:43.445 --> 05:48.005
academic books strictly, is you're making compromises.

05:48.345 --> 05:53.085
You are, not able, as you are in the academic world

05:53.385 --> 05:58.245
to just deal with, ideas in a, in a very detailed,

05:58.575 --> 06:02.605
analytical way to go down rabbit holes and,

06:02.785 --> 06:04.645
and really flesh things out.

06:05.035 --> 06:06.965
When you're writing in a popular vein

06:07.065 --> 06:10.245
or making a film, it has to be entertaining.

06:10.745 --> 06:11.965
Uh, it has to be engaging

06:12.705 --> 06:14.045
and it's has

06:14.045 --> 06:17.725
to be story driven rather than analysis driven.

06:18.545 --> 06:21.125
So the analysis can be there,

06:21.745 --> 06:23.965
but typically in academic writing,

06:24.065 --> 06:26.405
the analysis are the first thing you do.

06:26.825 --> 06:29.805
And then maybe you illustrate with examples

06:29.905 --> 06:33.685
or empirical data when you're doing filmmaking

06:33.865 --> 06:38.165
or writing for popular audiences, you tell a story first,

06:38.985 --> 06:43.365
and then from the story you draw out analytical points.

06:43.545 --> 06:47.565
So that required some adjustment in terms of writing,

06:47.565 --> 06:48.645
popular trade books.

06:49.105 --> 06:52.405
It required more adjustment when moving to film.

06:53.065 --> 06:56.285
Um, because in film you're not just dealing with print,

06:56.595 --> 06:59.485
it's multis, sensorial, you're dealing with music,

06:59.505 --> 07:02.245
you're dealing with images, you're trying

07:02.705 --> 07:07.165
to engage the whole viewer, not just their mind,

07:07.745 --> 07:12.485
but, but their emotions, their hearts, their souls,

07:12.545 --> 07:15.285
and you're doing it through, through music,

07:15.285 --> 07:17.565
through visual tropes, through all of that.

07:18.145 --> 07:21.565
Um, and it was initially intimidating

07:21.595 --> 07:24.045
because I wasn't trained in these areas,

07:24.045 --> 07:27.445
though I am a trained musician, and that helped.

07:28.105 --> 07:29.405
Um, there were just

07:29.545 --> 07:31.965
so many different things happening in filmmaking,

07:32.105 --> 07:35.005
but I came to really enjoy it.

07:35.065 --> 07:38.565
And in the first film, the Corporation, I wrote that,

07:38.825 --> 07:40.885
documentary, I didn't direct it,

07:40.985 --> 07:44.165
but the sequel, the New Corporation, which came out in 2020

07:44.465 --> 07:46.485
and is available on major platforms.

07:47.065 --> 07:51.245
Um, I, I directed that as, as well as writing it.

07:51.665 --> 07:56.605
And so I kind of learned how to be a documentary filmmaker

07:57.025 --> 07:59.525
by being a documentary filmmaker.

07:59.645 --> 08:01.965
I didn't really have any training, before,

08:02.065 --> 08:06.685
but I really enjoy the combination of, of

08:07.285 --> 08:09.685
academic writing, popular writing,

08:10.305 --> 08:13.965
and then filmmaking as trying to get a set

08:13.965 --> 08:15.805
of ideas out into the world

08:16.385 --> 08:18.605
in all these different dimensions

08:18.865 --> 08:21.245
and appealing to different kinds of audiences.

08:21.925 --> 08:23.925
I think the film was successful

08:23.955 --> 08:26.485
because it approached corporations

08:26.945 --> 08:28.765
and the problems that they create

08:29.425 --> 08:31.365
in a different way than had been done.

08:32.105 --> 08:36.325
And it landed in a moment when people were really worried

08:36.615 --> 08:38.245
about corporate power

08:38.585 --> 08:40.885
and about the harm that corporations were causing.

08:40.945 --> 08:45.165
It landed in the early two thousands, by which time

08:45.675 --> 08:49.685
globalization had really gained ahead of steam,

08:49.985 --> 08:54.845
and was sort of, rapidly, increasing the power

08:54.865 --> 08:55.960
of corporations

08:56.225 --> 08:59.205
and decreasing in relative terms, the power

08:59.385 --> 09:03.085
of democratic governments to, to regulate corporations.

09:03.085 --> 09:06.245
Corporations were now operating on a global basis.

09:06.515 --> 09:10.605
They were outside the sort of legal, reach

09:11.505 --> 09:15.245
of, of nations sort of operating in this,

09:15.675 --> 09:17.565
deregulated, transnational space

09:18.025 --> 09:19.685
of the environment was an issue.

09:19.735 --> 09:21.285
Human rights was an issue.

09:21.405 --> 09:23.525
Exploitation of workers were issues.

09:23.705 --> 09:25.645
All of these issues were coming to a head.

09:26.225 --> 09:28.245
Um, we had people in the streets

09:28.345 --> 09:30.605
and the anti-globalization movements

09:30.625 --> 09:32.165
of the early two thousands.

09:32.505 --> 09:36.645
So it was a moment when the question was right, namely,

09:37.385 --> 09:38.725
why is all this happening?

09:38.905 --> 09:41.125
Why are these corporations doing these things?

09:41.585 --> 09:43.485
Why are they being allowed to do these things?

09:44.505 --> 09:47.245
And rather than simply saying,

09:47.245 --> 09:50.805
those big bad corporations run by evil people,

09:51.955 --> 09:54.605
what our project did was to say,

09:55.535 --> 09:58.405
let's look at the institution itself and,

09:58.545 --> 09:59.765
and ask about that.

10:00.145 --> 10:04.685
So let's not just fall into the, it's just bad people

10:04.825 --> 10:08.085
who are sort of greedy and trying to make money,

10:08.585 --> 10:10.565
but let's ask about the institution.

10:10.785 --> 10:13.325
And so that's what the corporation did.

10:13.985 --> 10:18.605
Uh, it, it said, what, how is this institution put together

10:19.595 --> 10:22.245
that leads it to do these things?

10:22.705 --> 10:26.005
Uh, namely to cause problems for the environment

10:26.185 --> 10:27.685
and the planet and people,

10:28.545 --> 10:33.165
and to keep trying to amass more and more power and control

10:33.305 --> 10:35.125
and more freedom from regulation.

10:35.985 --> 10:37.045
And the answer that we

10:37.325 --> 10:41.045
provided is, it's right there on paper,

10:41.385 --> 10:42.485
namely in the law.

10:43.105 --> 10:45.165
The law actually says it has to do that.

10:45.905 --> 10:49.045
The law says that corporations must

10:49.975 --> 10:53.765
prioritize their own interests, meaning creating

10:54.305 --> 10:55.885
wealth for their shareholders.

10:56.905 --> 10:59.405
And they're not allowed to say, Hey,

10:59.425 --> 11:00.805
we wanna fix the environment,

11:00.865 --> 11:02.405
or We wanna be nice to our workers.

11:02.595 --> 11:06.325
They're actually legally prohibited from doing that.

11:06.395 --> 11:08.925
They always have to say what's best for our shareholders.

11:09.785 --> 11:12.845
And so I think that argument was, was new, especially

11:12.865 --> 11:17.365
for a popular audience that wasn't familiar with the sort

11:17.365 --> 11:19.725
of arcane corners of corporate law.

11:20.345 --> 11:22.405
Um, it was like, we've created

11:23.085 --> 11:25.645
a Frankenstein monster as a society.

11:26.375 --> 11:30.445
We've created this thing in a very dangerous way,

11:31.665 --> 11:33.925
and that was new.

11:33.945 --> 11:36.605
And then when you combine that with the idea of the,

11:36.665 --> 11:39.165
the psychopath metaphor, I think that that really

11:39.755 --> 11:41.125
made sense to a lot of people.

11:41.385 --> 11:45.445
It, you know, works have influence

11:46.195 --> 11:49.965
when they provide a good answer to a question

11:50.675 --> 11:52.045
that people have.

11:52.585 --> 11:54.205
And I think that's what happened

11:54.315 --> 11:55.885
with our film and with the book.

11:56.865 --> 11:59.405
It was actually at the 10th anniversary

11:59.585 --> 12:04.205
of this film back in 2014, where

12:04.925 --> 12:07.245
I had a kind of epiphany.

12:07.725 --> 12:11.085
I was sitting, we, we actually rented a theater downtown.

12:11.705 --> 12:14.685
Uh, you know, we had drinks and hor d'oeuvres

12:14.685 --> 12:16.565
and a big party celebrating Wow.

12:16.705 --> 12:18.605
10 years of, of this film.

12:18.625 --> 12:20.165
And it's done so well and everything.

12:20.225 --> 12:23.045
And, and about halfway through watching the film sitting

12:23.045 --> 12:25.365
there with this audience,

12:26.505 --> 12:28.405
it hit me like a ton of bricks.

12:28.765 --> 12:32.325
I I thought, wow, this film was a total failure.

12:32.785 --> 12:33.965
And it was a total failure

12:33.995 --> 12:38.005
because every issue that we looked at in the film

12:39.025 --> 12:40.045
has only gotten worse.

12:40.285 --> 12:43.725
Corporations have become bigger, they become more powerful.

12:44.185 --> 12:45.965
The environment is in more trouble,

12:46.235 --> 12:48.125
workers are more exploited.

12:48.175 --> 12:52.045
Human rights are more subject to corporate transgressions.

12:53.025 --> 12:56.325
And at the same time that all of this was getting worse,

12:57.785 --> 12:59.305
corporations were saying

13:00.085 --> 13:03.825
as they had been since about 2005, 2006,

13:04.135 --> 13:05.905
that they had radically changed

13:06.535 --> 13:08.345
that they were now good actors,

13:08.935 --> 13:11.825
that they were socially responsible and,

13:12.165 --> 13:13.665
and they were gonna save the world

13:13.665 --> 13:14.905
rather than ruin the world.

13:15.065 --> 13:16.585
I mean, this was, this was

13:16.685 --> 13:18.385
and is continues to be

13:18.945 --> 13:22.345
a very powerful narrative coming from the corporate world.

13:23.325 --> 13:26.905
And, and so I thought this contradiction

13:27.495 --> 13:31.025
between things getting worse in terms of corporate harms

13:31.045 --> 13:33.465
and corporations saying they've gotten better

13:34.115 --> 13:35.185
needs to be looked at.

13:35.485 --> 13:38.625
And so I started thinking about a new book and a new film.

13:39.165 --> 13:40.985
Um, it was released in 2020.

13:40.985 --> 13:42.745
It's called The New Corporation.

13:43.525 --> 13:46.025
Uh, the book is available in, in a number

13:46.025 --> 13:47.865
of languages in the United States.

13:48.125 --> 13:50.025
Uh, it's Penguin Random House

13:50.165 --> 13:53.865
and films available in all major streamers, Amazon Prime,

13:53.875 --> 13:55.305
apple tv, all of that.

13:55.885 --> 13:58.105
And basically it looks at this contradiction.

13:58.445 --> 14:00.225
And, I went to,

14:00.225 --> 14:03.905
the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos with a film crew,

14:04.325 --> 14:05.945
and we interview all kinds of people

14:06.085 --> 14:09.745
and we basically make the argument in the book and film,

14:10.205 --> 14:12.105
and this is the subtitle of the book,

14:12.175 --> 14:14.985
that good corporations are bad for democracy.

14:15.965 --> 14:20.705
And the reason for that is that this new sort of sense

14:20.735 --> 14:22.785
that corporations are

14:22.885 --> 14:26.865
and can be good is twinned with another idea.

14:27.205 --> 14:29.465
And that is, therefore since we're

14:29.465 --> 14:31.265
good, you should trust us.

14:32.045 --> 14:33.225
We can be good on our own.

14:33.245 --> 14:34.745
You don't need to regulate us,

14:35.405 --> 14:40.185
and you should hand over services that used to be public

14:40.745 --> 14:43.025
services like schools or like water systems.

14:43.645 --> 14:44.945
Uh, hand them over to us

14:45.255 --> 14:48.585
because we're now publicly minded, we're now good actors,

14:48.795 --> 14:50.785
we're now trustworthy, and we can do that.

14:51.905 --> 14:55.205
And I think that the problem is that for all the reasons

14:55.975 --> 14:58.045
noted in the first book,

14:58.045 --> 15:00.805
corporations are still the psychopaths they were,

15:00.805 --> 15:03.285
then they've simply found their charm.

15:03.945 --> 15:07.005
And that charm, as in human psychopaths,

15:07.105 --> 15:08.125
can be quite dangerous.

15:08.125 --> 15:10.365
So that's what I look at in,

15:10.425 --> 15:13.165
in the new corporation work, which as I noted,

15:13.165 --> 15:14.605
came out just a few years ago.

00:00 - Film obviously did really well. It, it played across the world. It was translated in 25, 26 languages. and it had a large popular response in terms of lawyers and law professors in particular. it had a very positive response as well.

00:20 - I hear from, anecdotally, I hear from colleagues, 'cause I'm a law professor, I hear from colleagues across, the world, different countries, different law schools that they use the book or they use the film in their classes. it's, some of the leading textbooks on corporate law refer to the book. and so, yeah, it, and the reason for that is I think it was probably one of the first times, that there was an attempt

00:54 - to ask the question, how is it that the central principles of corporate law, and particularly the idea that corporations always have to pursue their own self-interest, how does that legal principle land in the world? What are its impacts? and that seems to be something that a lot of lawyers and law professors, found, insightful and, and helpful. The central premise of both the film

01:26 - and the book, is that when you look at the fundamental principle of corporate law, in the US legal system, the UK legal system, to some extent, European legal systems, the fundamental principle is that corporations always have to act in their own best interests. So they're legally compelled to act in self-interest. And so what I did is I had done psychology as an undergrad before going to law school,

02:01 - and I had learned about psychopaths. And the fundamental principle of psychopaths was that they always act in their own self-interest, that they're incapable, constitutionally incapable of caring about other people. and I thought, well, that's really interesting. Here we've created the corporation, we've imbued it with personhood. Legally it's deemed to be a person. It, we've given it a personality where it always has

02:30 - to act in its own self-interest, which is really the personality of a psychopath. so the central premise is the corporation is a psychopathic institution. Now, does that mean that everything corporations do, are bad things? Not necessarily, sometimes it will be in the self-interest of a company to do good things or to at Least appear to do good things.

03:00 - And so we see the rise of corporate social responsibility, CSR, ESG, environmental, social and government governance, social capitalism, green capitalism, all these ideas that basically say that corporations, can and should do good things. but what I argue to some extent in the first book in film and what I pick up on, in my second book in film, the New Corporation, which are sequels

03:33 - and which came out in 2020, is that there's a fundamental problem here. And that is that if the corporation is legally compelled always to act in its own self-interest, then there are going to be real limits to how much good corporations can do. and basically when it's more profitable for them to do bad things and to do good things, they will do bad things. And there's also the problem that they will try to appear to be doing good things in order

04:07 - to serve their self-interest, when in fact they're not so greenwashing and all that kind of deception. So that fundamental contradiction in C-S-R-E-S-G is problematic, and it's even more problematic when corporations start being seen as good actors and thereby capable of doing things that governments normally do, like running schools or water systems. And so there's a way in which good corporations, or the idea of good corporations is problematic

04:41 - for democracy because it helps pave the way for corporations to take over roles that democratic government should be doing. I fell into documentary filmmaking completely accidentally. I was in the middle of, a scholarly piece on the nature of corporations. and I met at a social event, well, not really a social event. It was a funeral actually, of a mutual, mutual friend, the filmmaker, mark Akbar,

05:13 - whose documentary films I was aware of. And I liked a great deal. And we started talking and I was telling him about this book that I was writing, and he said that would make, a good film and one thing led to another. and we were working on the corporation. and you know, the, the thing about both documentary films and also writing for popular audiences, which the books

05:39 - that are the basis of my films are, are that they're not academic books strictly, is you're making compromises. You are, not able, as you are in the academic world to just deal with, ideas in a, in a very detailed, analytical way to go down rabbit holes and, and really flesh things out. When you're writing in a popular vein or making a film, it has to be entertaining. it has to be engaging and it's has

06:14 - to be story driven rather than analysis driven. So the analysis can be there, but typically in academic writing, the analysis are the first thing you do. And then maybe you illustrate with examples or empirical data when you're doing filmmaking or writing for popular audiences, you tell a story first, and then from the story you draw out analytical points. So that required some adjustment in terms of writing, popular trade books.

06:49 - It required more adjustment when moving to film. because in film you're not just dealing with print, it's multis, sensorial, you're dealing with music, you're dealing with images, you're trying to engage the whole viewer, not just their mind, but, but their emotions, their hearts, their souls, and you're doing it through, through music, through visual tropes, through all of that. and it was initially intimidating because I wasn't trained in these areas,

07:24 - though I am a trained musician, and that helped. there were just so many different things happening in filmmaking, but I came to really enjoy it. And in the first film, the Corporation, I wrote that, documentary, I didn't direct it, but the sequel, the New Corporation, which came out in 2020 and is available on major platforms. I, I directed that as, as well as writing it. And so I kind of learned how to be a documentary filmmaker

07:57 - by being a documentary filmmaker. I didn't really have any training, before, but I really enjoy the combination of, of academic writing, popular writing, and then filmmaking as trying to get a set of ideas out into the world in all these different dimensions and appealing to different kinds of audiences. I think the film was successful because it approached corporations

08:26 - and the problems that they create in a different way than had been done. And it landed in a moment when people were really worried about corporate power and about the harm that corporations were causing. It landed in the early two thousands, by which time globalization had really gained ahead of steam, and was sort of, rapidly, increasing the power of corporations and decreasing in relative terms, the power

08:59 - of democratic governments to, to regulate corporations. Corporations were now operating on a global basis. They were outside the sort of legal, reach of, of nations sort of operating in this, deregulated, transnational space of the environment was an issue. Human rights was an issue. Exploitation of workers were issues. All of these issues were coming to a head. we had people in the streets

09:28 - and the anti-globalization movements of the early two thousands. So it was a moment when the question was right, namely, why is all this happening? Why are these corporations doing these things? Why are they being allowed to do these things? And rather than simply saying, those big bad corporations run by evil people, what our project did was to say, let's look at the institution itself and,

09:58 - and ask about that. So let's not just fall into the, it's just bad people who are sort of greedy and trying to make money, but let's ask about the institution. And so that's what the corporation did. it, it said, what, how is this institution put together that leads it to do these things? namely to cause problems for the environment and the planet and people, and to keep trying to amass more and more power and control

10:33 - and more freedom from regulation. And the answer that we provided is, it's right there on paper, namely in the law. The law actually says it has to do that. The law says that corporations must prioritize their own interests, meaning creating wealth for their shareholders. And they're not allowed to say, Hey, we wanna fix the environment,

11:00 - or We wanna be nice to our workers. They're actually legally prohibited from doing that. They always have to say what's best for our shareholders. And so I think that argument was, was new, especially for a popular audience that wasn't familiar with the sort of arcane corners of corporate law. it was like, we've created a Frankenstein monster as a society. We've created this thing in a very dangerous way, and that was new.

11:33 - And then when you combine that with the idea of the, the psychopath metaphor, I think that that really made sense to a lot of people. It, you know, works have influence when they provide a good answer to a question that people have. And I think that's what happened with our film and with the book. It was actually at the 10th anniversary of this film back in 2014, where

12:04 - I had a kind of epiphany. I was sitting, we, we actually rented a theater downtown. you know, we had drinks and hor d'oeuvres and a big party celebrating Wow. 10 years of, of this film. And it's done so well and everything. And, and about halfway through watching the film sitting there with this audience, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I I thought, wow, this film was a total failure.

12:32 - And it was a total failure because every issue that we looked at in the film has only gotten worse. Corporations have become bigger, they become more powerful. The environment is in more trouble, workers are more exploited. Human rights are more subject to corporate transgressions. And at the same time that all of this was getting worse, corporations were saying as they had been since about 2005, 2006,

13:04 - that they had radically changed that they were now good actors, that they were socially responsible and, and they were gonna save the world rather than ruin the world. I mean, this was, this was and is continues to be a very powerful narrative coming from the corporate world. And, and so I thought this contradiction between things getting worse in terms of corporate harms

13:31 - and corporations saying they've gotten better needs to be looked at. And so I started thinking about a new book and a new film. it was released in 2020. It's called The New Corporation. the book is available in, in a number of languages in the United States. it's Penguin Random House and films available in all major streamers, Amazon Prime, apple tv, all of that.

13:55 - And basically it looks at this contradiction. And, I went to, the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos with a film crew, and we interview all kinds of people and we basically make the argument in the book and film, and this is the subtitle of the book, that good corporations are bad for democracy. And the reason for that is that this new sort of sense that corporations are and can be good is twinned with another idea.

14:27 - And that is, therefore since we're good, you should trust us. We can be good on our own. You don't need to regulate us, and you should hand over services that used to be public services like schools or like water systems. hand them over to us because we're now publicly minded, we're now good actors, we're now trustworthy, and we can do that. And I think that the problem is that for all the reasons

14:55 - noted in the first book, corporations are still the psychopaths they were, then they've simply found their charm. And that charm, as in human psychopaths, can be quite dangerous. So that's what I look at in, in the new corporation work, which as I noted, came out just a few years ago.

Faculti AI can make mistakes