Return to Mercer Street 2001 Table of Contents

by David Miller

"The nineteenth-century legal scholar Schultes described public trust rights as 'unalienable.' He explained that 'things which relate to the public good cannot be given, sold, or transferred by the King to another person'" (Cronin and Kennedy 142). More specifically, the "things" Schultes refers to are property common to all citizens of the world including, but by no means limited to, the air, the land, and the water. While the vast majority of humankind would agree in principle with Schultes's concerns, regulations on the use of particular natural bodies understood as public property are no longer strongly enforced. Upholding such rules is simply no longer a conscious priority among busy people. Most of us are concerned with our immediate self-interest both economically and politically, and we tend to ignore long-term environmental injustices unless those infringements affect us directly. Although we are quick to identify and criticize irresponsibility on the parts of violators, our concern rarely compels us to retaliate against wrongdoers and correct the wrongs.

Our neglect is being made apparent to us in essays regarding environmental issues. Nearly every author has an opinion on the environmental malpractice of corporations and their representatives, but even these critics fail to offer a strategy for curbing the negligence of business firms. This failure encourages an attitude of hopelessness among the environmentally concerned members of society and reminds us that a long overdue effort to uncover answers is in order. We need go no further than the source of the problem to find a workable solution: Corporations must hold themselves responsible to the public trust.

Regardless of the greater populace's indifference to environmental abuses, accountability for the preservation of the ecosystem must be assigned to some individual or party. Thus, it seems appropriate that those with ownership of the public property assume upkeep of that land. Just as "a company's first responsibility, as agents of the shareholders, is to maximize the return on their constituents' investment," so too should a "public land"-owning firm's primary responsibility, as agents of the community, be to maintain, and where practicable improve, the richness of their grant" (Reich). And who exactly is chiefly liable for the actions of the firm? The answer is clear: the chief executive officer. These executives dictate and implement policy; they have the last word. With power comes responsibility, and to the extent that the executive is responsible for the maximization of profit, the well-being of his or her employees, and ultimately the survival of the firm, he or she is equally, if not more responsible, for the conservation of public land entrusted to the firm.

It would be unjust to blithely impose judgment on the executive without first reaching a reasonable assessment of precisely what is required of, and achievable by, this officer. The executive must be political while being representative. His obligations extend in many directions, some of which may seem at cross purposes. In his essay "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Profits," Milton Friedman argues that "a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom" (174). The absoluteness of the executive's accountability necessitates his clear understanding of the company's history and present condition. Simultaneously, the CEO must always have one eye glued to the future; the definitive role of this office is to consider the most profitable course available to the company with its limited resources, and then determine the most prudent route by which the company will proceed. In short, the executive provides the firm with a vision.

By the time an individual has reached this summit of the corporate mountain, he or she should be an expert on the inner workings of the firm. As Pat C. Hoy explains in his essay on "Leadership," a CEO should use field knowledge as a guide to directing others: "[A leader has] been a soldier before he [becomes] an officer, and he [must] never [forget] what it felt like to receive orders. Yet when it [comes] time to give orders, he [must] never [forget] that he [has] become an officer" (455). Their prior experience with performing day-to-day functions as intern, employee, supervisor, and manager should have equipped them with superior skills in communication and execution. This wisdom and confidence should radiate from the corporate figurehead; interaction with other members of the firm from all levels should inspire others, and that inspiring interaction should have become second nature to the giver. Such characteristics are not just desirable qualities of an executive; they are prerequisites. Any CEO who still focuses almost exclusively on the minute details of internal issues or struggles is in practice nothing more than a manager, an inside commander. An executive must also expand his or her attention and capabilities to external matters, and act as the bridge between the firm and the community. A savvy CEO understands the public and shapes policy for the business that is responsive to the public's reasonable demands. As daring and contradictory as it may sound, corporate executives are economic politicians.

It is important not to misinterpret those far-sighted objectives as indifference to the corporation. As with everything in life, a balancing is called for. Similar to Machiavelli's prince, the executive "must have two fears: one, internal, concerning his [employees]; the other, external, concerning [the public]" (46). The well-being and efficiency of the firm depend on the executive's venturing into the public sector. Beyond contemplation of and philosophizing on the mission of the company, the CEO must remain informed about the morale of his "troops" and ensure that no cracks exist in the brick and mortar of the company's foundation. Of course, this task cannot be performed single-handedly; the executive requires a close-knit circle of advisors to identify threats to the company's survival, and to develop and weigh the alternative resolutions. While an executive can never safeguard against all dangers within the firm, performance at an optimal level is nonetheless attainable and necessary. Until then, the CEO can never effectively concentrate his or her energies on the bigger picture of public-interest work.

How should the executive's balancing of important, and at times seemingly contradictory, missions be calibrated and implemented? Undoubtedly, the bottom line is critical. Profits fuel a healthy image, and a healthy image attracts investors to provide the firm with capital for growth. Yet nowhere is the threshold level of necessary profit described as having to be monumental or colossal; investors simply want returns commensurate with their risk. They do not need to be persuaded by astronomical profits (that surely will not last); their investment implies their belief in the firm as a solid and reliable company. No company exemplifies those attributes of stability more than Wal-Mart. The retail store is the juggernaut of its industry and shows no signs of losing its command. A press statement last year from the company's President and CEO, Lee Scott, following the annual earnings report reiterates this accomplishment: "We are pleased to report our 29th consecutive year of record sales and earnings growth. Thanks to the effort of our associates, each of our domestic segments increased operating earnings for the year at a rate faster than their sales growth. . .Although the year we just completed was exceptional, I am confident that with the help of our great associates we will deliver another record year of value to our customers, members and shareholders" (www. walmartstores.com). A continual stream of steady profit is sexier and more reassuring to investors than any volatile stock that burns out after its 15 minutes in the spotlight. The unrelenting success of Wal-Mart's stock testifies to this market characteristic. In other words, corporations are in the business of survival. They are in the game for the long run and depend on the executive to ensure their existence while in control. The CEO therefore must create all-encompassing policy, and policies, specifically incorporating this mandate into his or her vision. But what exactly are these policies?

Our exploration of the broad scope of the executive has now come full circle. The public-minded leader of the internally healthy corporation now must decide on those guiding principles that will ultimately decide the fate of the company. Simply fashioning strategies that will benefit the company's immediate production or profit is not sufficient. Every decision has short-term and long-term advantages and disadvantages. Determining which course of action's likely strengths outweigh the potential weaknesses can often be enhanced by analyzing the outcome of similar actions by other companies.

The American business model frequently leads executives to adopt practices that boost short-term profit margins to seduce investors and satisfy shareholders, while compromising employees and endangering the public. This approach is synonymous with immediate profit maximization. Such an economic course was undertaken by General Electric in the 1950s. As a means of minimizing its variable costs of production, GE bypassed costly disposal methods by dumping PCBs into the Hudson River. This decision allowed GE to gain a competitive advantage over its business rivals while their practices went unnoticed and still later were tolerated. At the same time, their poisonous activities had major social implications: "In truth, General Electric now owns the fish in the Hudson. . .[They] stole something that belonged to the public" (Cronin and Kennedy 140). As public outcry eventually challenged their environmentally negligent business model, GE was forced by community and government opposition to cease from further improper disposal that contaminated the Hudson waters. In the end, the antagonism fostered by their profit-driven motives led GE to shut down the tarnished plant. The long-term health and security of their company was thus jeopardized, as the foreseeable reaction to a profitable short-term strategy caused significant production to be terminated, abandoned workers to be enraged, and the general and consuming public to feel betrayed (Cronin and Kennedy 140).

Although GE survived that controversy, the company has been left with a menacing shadow that perpetually looms as testament to their greedy injustices of the past. A new administrative regime helped to restore the positive image of the company in large part and win back the support of Wall Street and Main Street. Nonetheless, had GE taken greater social responsibility by operating in harmony with the public's deeply latent but fervent mandate of environmental preservation, their cooperation would surely have fostered a more sound public reputation, and translated into a stability of growth surpassing even their present level as a result of higher long-run total profits.

It is clear from the case of General Electric that profits derive from more than just minimizing costs and maximizing revenue. Society plays an important role in deciding the future of corporations in ways other than the simple demand for their goods and services. A healthy relationship with the public is a necessity for firms to remain in business. In short, companies, and in particular their executive officers, are encouraged by the "invisible hand" of the market to establish business models that achieve an equilibrium between profit maximization and social responsibility. And aside from operating in the interest of shareholders and offering their employees a stimulating and secure working environment (both internal issues), the third element of the corporate triangle of success is social responsibility and particularly today the kind of pro-environmental policies that improve the resources of the communities within which the firms function. That last element is an external dynamic initiated by the executive. This economic reality is made apparent when the human stake in nature and its preservation are seriously considered.

If nothing else, nature enriches the human population. It provides us with the resources that serve as an underpinning to our economy. Business is nothing more than a complex mechanism that guides decisions of resource allocation under conditions of scarcity. It is in the interest of businesses to aggregate scarce resources in a manner that accommodates the demand of the public sector in order to profit from their effort. Environmentalist principles need not conflict with economic prosperity. In fact, they do just the opposite. Environmental infractions by firms, which pollute property to the extent that they become no longer habitable or usable by the public, are in essence no different from blatant seizure of the land. Even though companies may not construct barbed-wire fences and post cautionary placards to denote infected areas when their polluting renders a particular site unusable by others, that property has become, nevertheless, their own, without the consent of the public. This seizure or forced ownership may not be immediately apparent, but the end result to the public is the same. The irresponsible corporation has rendered the land worthless.

In his analysis of monarchies, which in medieval times were often the largest business enterprises of the respective domains, Machiavelli argued that such predatory behavior was the most severe threat to a leader's approval: "What makes [a prince] hated above all else is being rapacious and a usurper of the property. . .of his subjects; he must refrain from this" (Machiavelli 46). Although a prince and a corporation are not one and the same, they share a common thread in that their every action influences their public's perception of them. Machiavelli's advice is even more relevant to 21st Century businesses which can claim no "divine right" to existence as did the 15th Century king, but rather require the continuing economic and political support of the public. Accordingly, if a firm wishes to avoid the hostility of its surrounding community, it too should respect the territory in which it functions. While avoiding environmental responsibility can yield profits in the short run as General Electric's activities demonstrate, the net result is inevitably negative in the long run. The losses to the losers vastly overshadow the gains to the gainers. In other words, the firm offers no long-standing improvement to the public sector. Conversely, the classification of environmental responsibility as a fundamental tool of business firms to maximize profit is validated. Consequently, it will be in the interest of every firm's long-term health and ultimate survival to implement policies that favor the environment.

Arguments contrary to the foregoing proposition will certainly arise based on the premise that present-day firms exhibit laughable concern for the environment in their business models and yet experience no significant pressure from the public to curtail their disobedience. This argument ignores the long-run implications of those firms' activities. No rational conclusion springs from narrow-sighted analysis. A complete solution is only attained when problems are considered from many angles over an extended time frame. The response to the aforementioned assertion is simply that not enough time has passed for the full damages of companies' disregard for environmental conservation to be realized. An unwelcome judgment day lurks on the horizon.

The lesson to be learned from examples like the General Electric controversy is that power and profit rest in the public. The recent adverse public reaction to the Bush administration's carbon dioxide and arsenic positions, and to the perception that those positions were directed by American business, reinforces that lesson. Firms that operate under the impression that they are gaining additional profits by cutting environmental corners are in reality endangering their future. By not responding to the gathering will of the public that calls for environmental responsibility, businesses are missing the opportunity to maximize future profits. This oversight is in part due to the significant number of unqualified executives in the corporate world. These wrongly labeled executives are nothing more than need-based managers whose maturity and vision fail to keep pace with the growth of their responsibility. They continue to use small-minded tactics for a job that requires broad strategy. Until business leaders are educated in these economic principles or are driven by public protest to change their environmentally harmful procedures, the business landscape will remain the same, and the public trust will be violated.

Works Cited

Cronin, John and Robert Kennedy. "King John to General Electric." The Riverkeepers. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.

Friedman, Milton. "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits." Cases and Readings in Markets, Ethics and Law. Ed. Bruce S. Buchanan, Robert Boyd Lamb, and Roy C. Smith. Needham Heights: Simon & Schuster, 1994.

Hoy, Pat C. "Leadership." Sewanee Review. Vol. C, Num. 3. Summer 1992.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. "The Qualities of a Prince." A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford, 1998.

Reich, Robert B. "A Shareholder, And a Citizen." The New York Times. 5 November 1999.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. "Wal-Mart Reports Record Sales and Earnings for Quarter and Year." 15 February 2000 <http:// www.walmartstores.com/newsstand/ archive/prf_000215_1999_4thqtr. shtml>.

Return to Mercer Street 2001 Table of Contents