"The only responsibility of Corporate Executives, provided they stay within the confines of the law, is to make as much money as possible for their companies."
What are the Responsibilities of Corporate Exec's? How do we define responsibility? Is the Law adequate? And is making money worth ruining lives? These are just a few questions that come immediately to mind when I read the topic, and below, I'll be sure to answer each one. First I think it's important to establish some definitions for the purpose of this essay.
Responsibility, is the quality or state of being responsible; ethical, honest, trustworthy, hard-working are a few terms that come to mind. The law in this case is legal action that can be taken or cirumvented when applied to business practices and the flow of cash. Lastly, a corporate executive is one of the highest level of managers in a company, often retaining a large salary, comfy office, company car, spending accounts and most of the dictorial power. He can easily direct entire divisions, and subordinates because that is his job.
With these definitions in mind, it's clear that a corporate executive's responsibilities far exceed "making money". Being granted luxury and power implies he has to perform at a high level. He should work harder then the average, or lower level "peon", as my boss likes to say, "that's why they pay him the big bucks".
Making money also requires that those below you are working effectively, that each one is proficient in their specific task, and that they are content doing so. It's also important to acknowledge that executives are nothing without those below and beside them. Without divisions to direct, and partners to help carry the burden they would have to perform at levels beyond endurance, especially for a larger corporation.
The statement also makes an assumption that the law is adequate, and often it is not. Oversight is poor, espcially when it comes to large, multi-national corporations, and when you throw in financial contributions to political parties or campaigns the entire picture becomes very shady.
A couple of examples come to mind, specifically Haliburton, has been notorious for having politicians in their pocket. Our current Vice President used to be a Haliburton Exec, and now he directs policy which directly leads to them making profits: Building bases in Iraq, and Prisons in the US, it's obvious that their political connections have landed them several no-bid contracts. What's worse: This is all a matter of public record, and yet no one except independent bloggers will address it.
We can also spend hours addressing the military industrail complex and how their profits come directly from conflict, war, in short, death and destruction. These people are paid to develop new and better ways to kill others. Their executives clearly aren't aware of the full range of the word responsible.
In summation, we have a several-billion dollar "war" in Iraq, which is directly profitting the hands of a few, eager to engage in more conflict and thus generate further income. If their only task is to make money, they're excelling at it, but the cost is the blood and lives of innocent men and women in the US Armed forces, as well as in Iraq, Afganistan and anywhere else they target. As such, I return to my original definition of responsiblity: Responsibility, is the quality or state of being responsible; ethical, honest, trustworthy, and hard-working.Thus focusing solely on financial gain negates the possibility of being responsible.