So
many of the problems facing the world
today feel overwhelming and are, indeed,
too great for an individual to take
on. Faced with looming environmental,
health and social crises, it is comforting
to turn to the government for solutions.
Some problems require government intervention:
child labor, food inspection and other
public health protections are areas
in which most agree government intervention
is necessary. Certainly, civil rights
had to be legislated nationally because
entrenched bigotry had proven to be
more powerful than our sense of fairness.
However, legislated fixes are not always
appropriate and reliance on governmental
solutions can be a problem: societal
needs will always be greater than available
funding; support may target the wrong
aspects of a given problem, even inhibiting
solutions rather than promoting them;
funding for programs is unreliable
across administrations; and bureaucracy
can consume a large portion of funds
granted.
Often
the funding for programs designed to
improve the long term situation for
individuals and the environment fluctuates
based on political will rather than
societal need. For example, the February
7, 2006, Washington Post reports that “"The
$2.77 trillion budget plan President
Bush sent to Congress yesterday emphasizes
spending on the country's fight against
terrorism, while deeply cutting domestic
programs . . ."” While national
security issues are pressing, domestic
problems don't go away.
In
the past, policies and programs begun
under a sympathetic government have
been defunded or sabotaged when the
political winds shift. For example,
under President Carter's administration,
domestic violence programs received
significant federal support. With the
change of administrations, however,
the focus of the domestic agenda shifted,
and domestic violence prevention was
defunded. Foreign aid money sent to
promote women's health internationally
was converted to an anti-abortion platform
through a medical gag rule. Affirmative
Action was initiated specifically to
improve the economic circumstances
of African Americans through education
and employment opportunities, but almost
immediately it was expanded to include
the majority of the population. The
effect has been that the unemployment
ratio between White and Black Americans
has remained almost exactly the same
from 1955 to 2005. White families have
benefited far more from Affirmative
Action than Black, as White women have
reaped great rewards in education and
employment. Still, ire over so called “"reverse
discrimination" and knee-jerk
reactions have made any sort of serious
policy reevaluation impossible. That
policies and programs created for one
purpose can be altered or even reversed
without a sound analysis of societal
need, but based on political whim,
suggests that there are times when
no loaf is better than half a loaf.
The
bureaucracy involved in running and
maintaining federally supported programs
is at times staggering. The paperwork
alone, even for a small organization,
can require a full time staff member,
adding expense and an additional layer
between the organization and its actual
goals. Regulation adds expense, and
while making sure that our tax dollars
are not misspent is an admirable goal,
for small organizations with limited
funding, too much of the money received
can be lost in the process. It's
very easy for organizations to become
focused on retaining their funding
rather than achieving their stated
goals. This can be true of state funded
programs as well. For example, in 1980s
California began funding organizations
to promote independent living among
the disabled. However, the accounting
for money spent was based on services
provided to disabled patrons. If the
disabled person demonstrated independence
the agency received no credit for serving
its clientele and therefore would lose
funding. This method of accounting,
a bureaucratic decision, placed the
goals of these agencies at odds with
their execution. Programs that wanted
to continue receiving funds in order
to do important work had to actually
maintain the dependence of their disabled
clients, thereby betraying their mission.
While
one can not dismiss all government
funded programs, we can say that the
needs haven't disappeared or
even significantly abated. People are
still hungry, homeless, suffering from
disease, discriminated against, harassed,
etc., even in the face of federal and
state programs designed to address
these problems.
Created
Equal joins the powerful groundswell
of organizations promoting a change
of course. Both past experience and
the current political and economic
climate suggest that government cannot
provide the entire solution. It is
probably time to acknowledge that the
United States is less of a representative
republic than an oligarchy. Even without
the recurring scandals about campaign
financing and lobbying, it is clearly
the case that corporations enjoy much
greater influence over government policy
than average citizen. As such, corporations
are better situated than the general
citizenry to determine policy and create
government partnerships. The problem
is how convince such entities to take
on social responsibilities.
The
key is enlightened self interest. Because
social and environmental issues affect
the work force and consumer base, it
is in the long term best interest of
corporations to mitigate these problems
in meaningful ways. This is not a call
for greater support of existing non-profits
like Created Equal. Corporate funding
of needed programs is good and useful,
but these contributions are often more
of a public relations effort than a
push for fundamental change. This is
not to say that corporate entities
are insincere, but that their support
tends to go to organizations whose
goals are limited to making tweaks
in the system rather than any fundamental
shift in policy. Organizations like
the United Way can garner tens of millions
of dollars every year to provide service
to people in need, but organizations
seeking to eliminate the need get little.
Hence, we're not just advocating
for more giving by corporate entities:
we are advocating corporate activism,
or perhaps more aptly, activist corporations.
It
is essential that activists build a
sustainable infrastructure to carry
on their reform efforts. Activists
are not only the most passionate, but
usually the most well informed in their
areas of expertise. The activist-lead
corporation can leverage that expertise
into marketable educational tools such
as those provided by Created Equal,
consulting firms, media for libraries,
or even private schools. Having built
a solid economic foundation, they can
leverage their economic power to influence
government as well as accomplishing
specific goals.
The
activist corporation can be efficient.
Public money is frequently earmarked
for political gain rather than to address
actual public need--pork barrel projects
designed to cushion an incumbent's
election chances, for example. And
when the source of the funding is “"other
people's money,"” it's
easy to spend wastefully, as it doesn't
have an immediate impact on the people
making the spending decisions. The
corporation will not have such an distasteful
advantage, for when the problem it
focuses on disappears, the market for
the product will also disappear, and
the entity will either shift focus
or disband.
The
activist corporation can be effective:
efforts won't depend on tax dollars
and therefore will not draw the kind
of ire that government based, coercive
reform does. As such, non-governmental
reform won't suffer the same
backlash, and therefore can't
be so easily co-opted or reversed by
the next administration.
This
is not the ideal or the only solution.
The problems the world faces are legion
and would be better served by the kind
of effort that is only put forth when
a nation faces the gravest danger.
The reality is, however, that the kind
of long term danger posed by global
warming, for example, can rarely garner
the necessary short term attention
nor the long term commitment from government.
The only structural entity with this
ability to focus, inform and influence
is the corporation.
Capitalism,
when wielded by people who are looking
for short-term gains, has proven to
be relatively destructive. When used
by people searching for sustainable
solutions, it can prove to be our salvation
as well.
Created
Equal is dedicated to being the best
example of an activist corporation
that it can be. We hereby commit ourselves
to seeing our flagship Oasis Project
off the ground in 2007. The Oasis Project
is the beginning of a new era for battered
women by building long term, self sustaining
violence recovery centers for women
and their children.
