Governments should fight corporations, not collaborate with them
-
0:01 - 0:02Twenty years ago,
-
0:02 - 0:05when I was a barrister
and human rights lawyer -
0:05 - 0:08in full-time legal practice in London,
-
0:08 - 0:10and the highest court in the land
-
0:10 - 0:15still convened, some would say
by an accident of history, -
0:15 - 0:16in this building here,
-
0:17 - 0:20I met a young man
who had just quit his job -
0:20 - 0:21in the British Foreign Office.
-
0:22 - 0:24When I asked him, "Why did you leave,"
-
0:24 - 0:25he told me this story.
-
0:27 - 0:29He had gone to his boss
one morning and said, -
0:29 - 0:33"Let's do something
about human rights abuses in China." -
0:34 - 0:36And his boss had replied,
-
0:36 - 0:39"We can't do anything
about human rights abuses in China -
0:39 - 0:42because we have
trade relations with China." -
0:43 - 0:45So my friend went away
with his tail between his legs, -
0:45 - 0:48and six months later,
he returned again to his boss, -
0:49 - 0:51and he said this time,
-
0:51 - 0:54"Let's do something
about human rights in Burma," -
0:54 - 0:56as it was then called.
-
0:56 - 0:59His boss once again paused
-
0:59 - 1:03and said, "Oh, but we can't
do anything about human rights in Burma -
1:03 - 1:06because we don't have
any trade relations with Burma." -
1:06 - 1:08(Laughter)
-
1:08 - 1:10This was the moment
he knew he had to leave. -
1:10 - 1:12It wasn't just the hypocrisy
that got to him. -
1:13 - 1:16It was the unwillingness of his government
-
1:16 - 1:19to engage in conflict
with other governments, -
1:19 - 1:21intense discussions,
-
1:21 - 1:25all the while, innocent people
were being harmed. -
1:26 - 1:28We are constantly told
-
1:28 - 1:30that conflict is bad
-
1:31 - 1:33that compromise is good;
-
1:34 - 1:35that conflict is bad
-
1:35 - 1:37but consensus is good;
-
1:38 - 1:40that conflict is bad
-
1:40 - 1:43and collaboration is good.
-
1:44 - 1:45But in my view,
-
1:45 - 1:48that's far too simple
a vision of the world. -
1:48 - 1:50We cannot know
-
1:50 - 1:52whether conflict is bad
-
1:52 - 1:55unless we know who is fighting,
-
1:55 - 1:57why they are fighting
-
1:57 - 1:59and how they are fighting.
-
1:59 - 2:02And compromises can be thoroughly rotten
-
2:02 - 2:05if they harm people
who are not at the table, -
2:06 - 2:08people who are vulnerable, disempowered,
-
2:08 - 2:11people whom we have
an obligation to protect. -
2:12 - 2:16Now, you might be
somewhat skeptical of a lawyer -
2:16 - 2:19arguing about the benefits of conflict
-
2:19 - 2:21and creating problems for compromise,
-
2:21 - 2:23but I did also qualify as a mediator,
-
2:23 - 2:27and these days, I spend my time
giving talks about ethics for free. -
2:27 - 2:30So as my bank manager likes to remind me,
I'm downwardly mobile. -
2:32 - 2:35But if you accept my argument,
-
2:35 - 2:38it should change not just the way
we lead our personal lives, -
2:39 - 2:41which I wish to put
to one side for the moment, -
2:42 - 2:45but it will change the way
we think about major problems -
2:45 - 2:48of public health and the environment.
-
2:49 - 2:51Let me explain.
-
2:52 - 2:55Every middle schooler
in the United States, -
2:55 - 2:57my 12-year-old daughter included,
-
2:57 - 3:01learns that there are
three branches of government, -
3:01 - 3:05the legislative, the executive
and the judicial branch. -
3:06 - 3:07James Madison wrote,
-
3:07 - 3:12"If there is any principle
more sacred in our Constitution, -
3:12 - 3:15and indeed in any free constitution,
-
3:15 - 3:17than any other,
-
3:17 - 3:19it is that which separates
-
3:19 - 3:23the legislative, the executive
and the judicial powers." -
3:24 - 3:27Now, the framers were not just concerned
-
3:27 - 3:31about the concentration
and exercise of power. -
3:31 - 3:35They also understood
the perils of influence. -
3:36 - 3:42Judges cannot determine
the constitutionality of laws -
3:42 - 3:45if they participate in making those laws,
-
3:45 - 3:49nor can they hold the other branches
of government accountable -
3:49 - 3:51if they collaborate with them
-
3:51 - 3:54or enter into close
relationships with them. -
3:55 - 3:59The Constitution is,
as one famous scholar put it, -
3:59 - 4:02"an invitation to struggle."
-
4:02 - 4:05And we the people are served
-
4:05 - 4:09when those branches do, indeed,
struggle with each other. -
4:11 - 4:15Now, we recognize
the importance of struggle -
4:15 - 4:18not just in the public sector
-
4:18 - 4:20between our branches of government.
-
4:20 - 4:24We also know it too in the private sector,
-
4:24 - 4:26in relationships among corporations.
-
4:27 - 4:32Let's imagine that two American airlines
get together and agree -
4:32 - 4:35that they will not drop the price
-
4:35 - 4:39of their economy class airfares
below 250 dollars a ticket. -
4:40 - 4:43That is collaboration,
some would say collusion, -
4:43 - 4:45not competition,
-
4:45 - 4:48and we the people are harmed
-
4:48 - 4:50because we pay more for our tickets.
-
4:51 - 4:53Imagine similarly
two airlines were to say, -
4:53 - 4:58"Look, Airline A, we'll take
the route from LA to Chicago," -
4:58 - 5:01and Airline B says, "We'll take
the route from Chicago to DC, -
5:01 - 5:03and we won't compete."
-
5:03 - 5:07Once again, that's collaboration
or collusion instead of competition, -
5:07 - 5:10and we the people are harmed.
-
5:12 - 5:17So we understand
the importance of struggle -
5:17 - 5:22when it comes to relationships
between branches of government, -
5:23 - 5:25the public sector.
-
5:25 - 5:28We also understand
the importance of conflict -
5:28 - 5:33when it comes to relationships
among corporations, -
5:33 - 5:34the private sector.
-
5:34 - 5:37But where we have forgotten it
-
5:37 - 5:41is in the relationships
between the public and the private. -
5:41 - 5:45And governments all over the world
are collaborating with industry -
5:45 - 5:49to solve problems of public health
and the environment, -
5:49 - 5:52often collaborating
with the very corporations -
5:52 - 5:58that are creating or exacerbating
the problems they are trying to solve. -
5:59 - 6:03We are told that these relationships
-
6:03 - 6:04are a win-win.
-
6:05 - 6:09But what if someone is losing out?
-
6:10 - 6:13Let me give you some examples.
-
6:14 - 6:17A United Nations agency
decided to address a serious problem: -
6:17 - 6:21poor sanitation in schools in rural India.
-
6:22 - 6:26They did so not just in collaboration
with national and local governments -
6:26 - 6:29but also with a television company
-
6:29 - 6:33and with a major
multinational soda company. -
6:34 - 6:37In exchange for less
than one million dollars, -
6:37 - 6:41that corporation received the benefits
of a months-long promotional campaign -
6:41 - 6:43including a 12-hour telethon
-
6:43 - 6:47all using the company's logo
and color scheme. -
6:48 - 6:50This was an arrangement
-
6:50 - 6:53which was totally understandable
-
6:53 - 6:55from the corporation's point of view.
-
6:55 - 6:58It enhances the reputation of the company
-
6:58 - 7:00and it creates brand loyalty
for its products. -
7:01 - 7:03But in my view,
-
7:03 - 7:07this is profoundly problematic
for the intergovernmental agency, -
7:07 - 7:11an agency that has a mission
to promote sustainable living. -
7:12 - 7:15By increasing consumption
of sugar-sweetened beverages -
7:15 - 7:19made from scarce local water supplies
and drunk out of plastic bottles -
7:19 - 7:22in a country that is already
grappling with obesity, -
7:22 - 7:26this is neither sustainable
from a public health -
7:26 - 7:29nor an environmental point of view.
-
7:29 - 7:32And in order to solve
one public health problem, -
7:32 - 7:34the agency is sowing the seeds
-
7:34 - 7:36of another.
-
7:37 - 7:42This is just one example
of dozens I discovered -
7:42 - 7:47in researching a book on the relationships
between government and industry. -
7:47 - 7:51I could also have told you
about the initiatives in parks -
7:51 - 7:52in London and throughout Britain,
-
7:52 - 7:55involving the same company,
promoting exercise, -
7:56 - 8:00or indeed of the British government
creating voluntary pledges -
8:00 - 8:03in partnership with industry
-
8:03 - 8:05instead of regulating industry.
-
8:05 - 8:11These collaborations or partnerships
have become the paradigm in public health, -
8:11 - 8:15and once again, they make sense
from the point of view of industry. -
8:15 - 8:19It allows them to frame
public health problems and their solutions -
8:19 - 8:21in ways that are least threatening to,
-
8:21 - 8:24most consonant with
their commercial interests. -
8:24 - 8:26So obesity becomes a problem
-
8:26 - 8:31of individual decision-making,
-
8:31 - 8:33of personal behavior,
-
8:33 - 8:36personal responsibility
and lack of physical activity. -
8:36 - 8:38It is not a problem,
-
8:38 - 8:40when framed this way,
-
8:40 - 8:43of a multinational food system
involving major corporations. -
8:43 - 8:45And again, I don't blame industry.
-
8:45 - 8:48Industry naturally engages
in strategies of influence -
8:48 - 8:51to promote its commercial interests.
-
8:52 - 8:55But governments have a responsibility
-
8:55 - 8:57to develop counterstrategies
-
8:57 - 8:59to protect us
-
8:59 - 9:01and the common good.
-
9:02 - 9:06The mistake that governments are making
-
9:06 - 9:09when they collaborate in this way
-
9:09 - 9:10with industry
-
9:10 - 9:13is that they conflate
-
9:13 - 9:15the common good
-
9:15 - 9:16with common ground.
-
9:17 - 9:20When you collaborate with industry,
-
9:20 - 9:23you necessarily put off the table
-
9:23 - 9:26things that might promote the common good
to which industry will not agree. -
9:26 - 9:29Industry will not agree
to increased regulation -
9:29 - 9:33unless it believes this will
stave off even more regulation -
9:33 - 9:37or perhaps knock some competitors
out of the market. -
9:38 - 9:40Nor can companies agree
to do certain things, -
9:40 - 9:43for example raise the prices
of their unhealthy products, -
9:43 - 9:45because that would violate
competition law, -
9:45 - 9:47as we've established.
-
9:49 - 9:52So our governments should not confound
-
9:52 - 9:54the common good and common ground,
-
9:54 - 10:00especially when common ground
means reaching agreement with industry. -
10:01 - 10:02I want to give you another example,
-
10:02 - 10:04moving from high-profile collaboration
-
10:04 - 10:07to something that is below ground
-
10:07 - 10:10both literally and figuratively:
-
10:10 - 10:13the hydraulic fracturing of natural gas.
-
10:13 - 10:17Imagine that you purchase a plot of land
-
10:17 - 10:19not knowing the mineral rights
have been sold. -
10:19 - 10:21This is before the fracking boom.
-
10:22 - 10:25You build your dream home on that plot,
-
10:25 - 10:27and shortly afterwards,
-
10:27 - 10:32you discover that a gas company
is building a well pad on your land. -
10:33 - 10:36That was the plight
of the Hallowich family. -
10:37 - 10:40Within a very short period of time,
-
10:40 - 10:43they began to complain of headaches,
-
10:43 - 10:46of sore throats, of itchy eyes,
-
10:47 - 10:49in addition to the interference
of the noise, vibration -
10:49 - 10:52and the bright lights
from the flaring of natural gas. -
10:53 - 10:55They were very vocal in their criticisms,
-
10:56 - 10:57and then they fell silent.
-
10:58 - 11:02And thanks to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
where this image appeared, -
11:02 - 11:05and one other newspaper,
we discovered why they fell silent. -
11:05 - 11:08The newspapers went to the court and said,
"What happened to the Hallowiches?" -
11:08 - 11:12And it turned out the Hallowiches
had made a secret settlement -
11:12 - 11:16with the gas operators, and it was
a take-it-or-leave-it settlement. -
11:16 - 11:17The gas company said,
-
11:17 - 11:19you can have a six-figure sum
-
11:19 - 11:21to move elsewhere
and start your lives again, -
11:21 - 11:23but in return
-
11:23 - 11:27you must promise not to speak
of your experience with our company, -
11:27 - 11:29not to speak of your
experience with fracking, -
11:29 - 11:33not to speak about the health consequences
-
11:34 - 11:37that might have been revealed
by a medical examination. -
11:38 - 11:41Now, I do not blame
the Hallowiches for accepting -
11:41 - 11:43a take-it-or-leave-it settlement
-
11:43 - 11:46and starting their lives elsewhere.
-
11:46 - 11:47And one can understand
-
11:47 - 11:50why the company would wish
to silence a squeaky wheel. -
11:50 - 11:54What I want to point the finger at
is the legal and regulatory system, -
11:54 - 11:56a system in which there are
networks of agreements -
11:56 - 11:58just like this one
-
11:58 - 12:02which serve to silence people
and seal off data points -
12:03 - 12:05from public health experts
and epidemiologists, -
12:05 - 12:07a system in which regulators
-
12:07 - 12:10will even refrain
from issuing a violation notice -
12:10 - 12:11in the event of pollution
-
12:11 - 12:14if the landowner and the gas company
-
12:14 - 12:15agree to settle.
-
12:15 - 12:19This is a system which isn't just
bad from a public health point of view; -
12:19 - 12:22it exposes hazards to local families
-
12:22 - 12:25who remain in the dark.
-
12:27 - 12:32Now, I have given you two examples
not because they are isolated examples. -
12:32 - 12:34They are examples of a systemic problem.
-
12:34 - 12:37I could share some counterexamples,
-
12:37 - 12:40the case for example
of the public official -
12:40 - 12:43who sues the pharmaceutical company
-
12:43 - 12:44for concealing the fact
-
12:44 - 12:51that its antidepressant increases
suicidal thoughts in adolescents. -
12:51 - 12:55I can tell you about the regulator
who went after the food company -
12:55 - 12:59for exaggerating the purported
health benefits of its yogurt. -
12:59 - 13:02And I can tell you about the legislator
-
13:02 - 13:06who despite heavy lobbying
directed at both sides of the aisle -
13:06 - 13:10pushes for environmental protections.
-
13:11 - 13:13These are isolated examples,
-
13:13 - 13:17but they are beacons of light
in the darkness, -
13:17 - 13:21and they can show us the way.
-
13:22 - 13:26I began by suggesting that sometimes
we need to engage in conflict. -
13:27 - 13:31Governments should tussle with,
-
13:31 - 13:37struggle with, at times engage
in direct conflict with corporations. -
13:38 - 13:42This is not because governments
are inherently good -
13:42 - 13:44and corporations are inherently evil.
-
13:45 - 13:49Each is capable of good or ill.
-
13:49 - 13:54But corporations understandably
act to promote their commercial interests, -
13:55 - 14:01and they do so either sometimes
undermining or promoting the common good. -
14:01 - 14:05But it is the responsibility
of governments -
14:05 - 14:08to protect and promote the common good.
-
14:08 - 14:11And we should insist
-
14:11 - 14:14that they fight to do so.
-
14:15 - 14:17This is because governments
-
14:17 - 14:19are the guardians
-
14:20 - 14:21of public health;
-
14:22 - 14:25governments are the guardians
-
14:25 - 14:27of the environment;
-
14:27 - 14:28and it is governments
-
14:28 - 14:30that are guardians
-
14:30 - 14:35of these essential parts
of our common good. -
14:36 - 14:37Thank you.
-
14:37 - 14:43(Applause)
- Title:
- Governments should fight corporations, not collaborate with them
- Speaker:
- Jonathan Marks
- Description:
-
Conflict is bad; compromise, consensus and collaboration are good -- or so we're told. Lawyer and bioethicist Jonathan Marks challenges this conventional wisdom, showing how governments can jeopardize public health, human rights and the environment when they partner with industry. An important, timely reminder that common good and common ground are not the same thing.
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- closed TED
- Project:
- TEDTalks
- Duration:
- 14:56
Brian Greene edited English subtitles for Governments should fight corporations, not collaborate with them | ||
Brian Greene edited English subtitles for Governments should fight corporations, not collaborate with them | ||
Brian Greene approved English subtitles for Governments should fight corporations, not collaborate with them | ||
Brian Greene edited English subtitles for Governments should fight corporations, not collaborate with them | ||
Joanna Pietrulewicz accepted English subtitles for Governments should fight corporations, not collaborate with them | ||
Joanna Pietrulewicz edited English subtitles for Governments should fight corporations, not collaborate with them | ||
Joanna Pietrulewicz edited English subtitles for Governments should fight corporations, not collaborate with them | ||
Joseph Geni edited English subtitles for Governments should fight corporations, not collaborate with them |