How super rich companies harm us all — and try to cover it up

Just because a company does incredibly well financially doesn't mean that it does any good for the people. How can we change that?

Anand Giridharadas: Wealthy corporations and people love to ask the question: "What can I do? What should we do? What can we start? What program could we launch?" I would say to the billionaire change agents and corporate social responsibility departments of our country ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you've already done to your country. Before you want to start something of your own, a little private unaccountable venture, do an audit. What do you pay people? Do you pay people enough? Do you use subcontractors to avoid responsibility for those workers? Do you pay benefits? When do your benefits kick in? What do you lobby for in Washington? Do you lobby for things that make everybody have a better life in America or do you lobby against social policies that would cost you something. What's your tax avoidance situation? Do you happen to be this earnest company that wants to change the world. I mean is this company paying its full measure of taxes? Does it use tax havens? Does it do the double Dutch with an Irish sandwich tax maneuver? Does it send money to the Cayman Islands and then back and do all this complex routing?

If you're telling me that there are companies that do none of this stuff, that pay people well, that don't dump externalities into the economy, that don't cause social problems – if there are such companies that exist yes, then once you've taken care of all that great. Doing some projects to help people is great. But I haven't found very many such companies. And more often than not when companies do a lot of CSR it's because they understand that they're not on the right side of justice in their day operations so they want to do virtue as a side hustle. And the problem is a lot of these companies tend to create harm in billions and then do good in the millions. And you don't need to be a mathematician to know that we're the losers from that bargain.

And you look at the B Corp movements. There's a lot of companies that actually have an interest in trying to invent a new kind of company that is not predatory. There's in the B Corp movement a certification process for those companies now. The challenges of them is that it's a great thing but it's fundamentally voluntary and what this does is it means that if you're an already good virtuous company you may be motivated to get into this club. But if you're Exxon or Pepsi you're not going to be in this club. And one of the things I'd like to see is how can we actually use the power of public policy to get more companies to sign up to simply not dump harm, social harm, into our society – whether that takes the form of toxic sludge or obese children or workers with unpredictable hours and income. And in the B Corp we have a model of a company that looks different but we don't have any kind of compulsion around it. So Senator Elizabeth Warren has a proposal out to turn every American corporation into a B Corp as a condition for getting a corporate charter.

I think there's a less radical option that I sometimes talk about which is why don't we just have a different and lower corporate tax rate for companies that in a certifiable way don't dump huge social problems onto the commons. And that way we might see thousands and thousands of companies electing to become certified benefit corporations in order to avail of that lower tax rate. I think we have to start thinking about how we attack one of the root causes of this kind of grade and malfeasance in American life which is shareholder primacy and the fact that many companies, even ones that want to be better are at risk of violating their shareholders rights by doing so. But I don't think we can do that strictly by creating a voluntary pool of better companies. I think we have to start using our leverage as a society to say if you want the benefits that we as a society give you when you become a corporation here's what we want in return.

New study suggests placebo might be as powerful as psychedelics

New study suggests the placebo effect can be as powerful as microdosing LSD.

Credit: agsandrew / Adobe Stock
Mind & Brain
  • New research from Imperial College London investigated the psychological effects of microdosing LSD in 191 volunteers.
  • While microdosers experienced beneficial mental health effects, the placebo group performed statistically similar to those who took LSD.
  • Researchers believe the expectation of a trip could produce some of the same sensations as actually ingesting psychedelics.
Keep reading Show less

Your genetics influence how resilient you are to the cold

What makes some people more likely to shiver than others?

KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP via Getty Images
Surprising Science

Some people just aren't bothered by the cold, no matter how low the temperature dips. And the reason for this may be in a person's genes.

Keep reading Show less

Dogs digest human food better and poop less

A new study finds that dogs fed fresh human-grade food don't need to eat—or do their business—as much.

Credit: Charles Deluvio/Unsplash
Surprising Science
  • Most dogs eat a diet that's primarily kibble.
  • When fed a fresh-food diet, however, they don't need to consume as much.
  • Dogs on fresh-food diets have healthier gut biomes.
Keep reading Show less

Harvard study finds perfect blend of fruits and vegetables to lower risk of death

Eating veggies is good for you. Now we can stop debating how much we should eat.

Credit: Pixabay
Surprising Science
  • A massive new study confirms that five servings of fruit and veggies a day can lower the risk of death.
  • The maximum benefit is found at two servings of fruit and three of veggies—anything more offers no extra benefit according to the researchers.
  • Not all fruits and veggies are equal. Leafy greens are better for you than starchy corn and potatoes.
Keep reading Show less
Quantcast