Corporate Accountability International
46 Plympton Street
Boston, MA. 02218-2425
1. Paul McClenon wrote:
At the June 28 Trustees’ meeting , we (Trustees) were all asked to consider selecting a few organizations that might deserve financial support from our Fund. You can, of course, select any project that you have liked, or you might look at the list on pages 12, 13 and 14 of the 48-page package that came with the Notice of the March 28 meeting. (You can learn a little more about any organization whose name interests you by looking in the “Long List” -- the 33 pages from 16 through 48 of that same package. )
When I, for example, scanned that list on page 16 I was interested in the name ”Corporate Accountability International.” I didn’t think that I had ever heard of them, and the title seemed interesting to me. I don’t know anything about them before 1977, but that was the start of a long-term campaign against Nestlé’s infant formula. (That campaign led to a World Health Organization’s Code of marketing for breast milk. Later (I think from about 1984 to some time in the 1990’s) there was a big campaign against General Electric Company because of their production of nuclear weapons. That campaign included boycotts of GE medical equipment and even light bulbs. (I think that campaign worked, and GE went out of the nuclear business.) The same organization has managed an anti-tobacco campaign, and one against bottled water. They have also been working to reduce the fat in American diets, especially in fast food products. My own reaction to this background has interested me. Without having studied any of those campaigns, I have the impression that they were all designed to help protect the public from damage being imposed by profit-seeking companies. In general that sounds to me like “positive” motivation. The organization hopes for more financial support; should I develop a presentation to persuade the Fund to contribute to them? I don’t know what I should do, but my own reaction is to feel that they seem to be “too negative;” I get the feeling that they are looking for a bad practice so that they can enjoy damaging the “guilty” perpetrators.
I’ll look a little further down the list to see what “inspires” me as that one did.
2. Carol McClenon wrote:
I
don't know, either; from your brief summary it sounds to me like the Corporate
Accountability Project is more designed to prevent things
(bad practices, etc.) than to promote things. Granted that
promoting new good practices will work to prevent older practices, still it
seems like this Project, although probably a good cause and maybe something an
individual philanthropist would be interested in, is not wholly in the spirit
of the Fund. If I remember correctly (by no means certain!), the Fund is
supposed to work for positive social change. ?
3. Chuck McClenon wrote:
that was my reaction too, which I
was maybe going to write. Embarrassment of offenders may sometimes be
necessary, but as a general means of influencing public policy it's seldom
constructive. And in the broad spirit of the fund's charter, to work for
positive changes, presenting as oppositional is not good, regardless of what
they oppose
4. Bob McClenon writes:
I agree. It isn’t obvious to me how shaming bad corporations contributes to any of the following provisions of Bylaw 3D:
1. cooperation between and among potentially hostile groups.
2. economic, social, industrial, or political reform.
3. equality of educational opportunity.
4. civil liberty or human freedom.
5. rehabilitation of persons suffering from a special handicap.
6. economic self-sufficiency of a disadvantaged group.
7. research likely to lead to social improvement.
In particular, as to Bylaw 3D1, naming or shaming of bad corporations is more likely to result in hostility than the reduce it.
If we look at the charter as well as the bylaws, we see: “The purpose of the Fund shall be the improvement of the economic, social, and industrial condition of the people of the United States and of the world, and especially of the condition of those people who appear to be in any respect at a special disadvantage.” The improvement of the condition of the people of the United States and the world resulting from nagging bad corporations will probably be at best marginal.
In the President’s Report to which Paul refers, it is on page 16 of 33, which is also page 25 of 48. It is also mentioned in passing on page 12 of 48.
I recommend that Corporate Accountability International be categorized as Not Selected Due to Eligibility Considerations for both endowments.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert McClenon
31 March 2012