Op-Ed: The Problem with Corporate Ecology

Last week Turkey began yet another leg of its marathon effort to gain EU membership. After making concessions on human rights and democratic institutions, Turkey is now facing an uphill battle over environmental regulation. The struggling Turkish economy is underpinned by large, resource-intensive agricultural, industrial and manufacturing sectors. Much recent growth has been facilitated by the virtual absence of environmental standards. Grey clouds of smog hang in the air just outside of Istanbul, expelled from unfettered smokestack expansion. Thick flows of black sludge, carelessly released from factories have replaced rivers. Waste treatment and recycling are unheard of. Any plan to clean up such devastating practices is cause to celebrate. But the details of the EU-endorsed plan—in other words, who is expected to pay—reveal a troubling reality. Turkey needs an estimated €100 billion for 'green' infrastructure (from water treatment to the protection of natural habitats). Of this only 20% will come from the private sector leaving the remaining €80 billion to be financed by the public sector; in other words, the Turkish taxpayer. While this unbalanced ledger comes as no surprise, it is illustrative of the absurd and unjust way in which environmental responsibility is allocated. Corporations, which have benefited for years from lax environmental regulations (not to mention tax breaks and government subsidies), are notably absent when the time comes to clean up the messes caused by their destructive ecological practices. Economic "experts" suddenly appear and start warning that if corporations are excessively burdened, unemployment will rise to startling new heights. Governments are quick to buckle and bills are left to the citizenry. If anyone is looking for a reason why the recent Copenhagen summits resulted is such dismal failure, this is it: no national government in the world has the courage (or foresight) to demand that big businesses play by the same rules as everybody else. Growing up, most of us are taught that if we make a mess, we should clean it up. So it is with any community, that is, rights come with attached responsibilities. And that is the basis of the legal system under which we, as citizens, live. Yet for some reason, corporations are considered differently. Although corporations are active members in society, with special rights from taxation to legal standing, they rarely accept the correlated responsibilities. Corporations eagerly participate when there are profits to be had but think little of dumping toxic wastes into public spaces or of relocating their operations overseas (at the expense of local workforces) when it suits their financial interests. Economists typically do their part too, downplaying or ignoring the impact the corporate agenda has on ecosystems, communities and workforces. These so-called externalities are simply excluded from any analysis of economic systems. And so it is that a pearl of Milton Friedman's neo-liberal lore has become the most dangerous maxim of our times: the corporation has no moral responsibilities other than to earn a profit. Corporations are free to exploit environments but have no obligation to minimize the damage, unless it is profitable. That is why Copenhagen failed to realize a strategy for combating climate change, and that is why subsequent attempts will similarly fail. Because Canadian politicians believe petro-dollars are more important than the Athabasca ecosystem; because natural gas exploration is given priority over the stability of the fragile Arctic Refuge; because Indonesian and Amazon rainforests are valued more as lumber than as irreparably diverse bio-regions; because Turkish citizens have to foot the bill for cleaning up the environment, so that corporations can keep making money.