"The Corporation" is not a film my dinner companion would enjoy.

It begins with the unsettling

information that, under the law, a corporation is not a thing but a person. The U.S. Supreme Court so
ruled, in a decision based, bizarrely, on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. That was the one that
guaranteed former slaves equal rights. The court ruling meant corporations were given the rights of
individuals in our society. They are free at last.

If Monsanto and WorldCom and Enron are indeed people, what kind of people are they? The movie asks
Robert Hare, a consultant who helps the FBI profile its suspects. His diagnosis: Corporations by definition
have a personality disorder and can be categorized as psychopathic. That is because they single-
mindedly pursue their own wills and desires without any consideration for other people (or
corporations) and without reference to conventional morality. They don't act that way to be evil; it's
just, as the scorpion explained to the frog, that it's in their nature.

One section of the film examines the historical links between various companies and mid-20th-century
fascism, which are used to support a broader claim that modern consumer capitalism is, at bottom, an
oppressive system of authority. ''Is it narcissism that impels them to seek their reflection in the
regimented structures of fascist regimes?'' the voice-over narration wonders.

The “personality” of the corporation that emerges is self interested (it serves its shareholders, not the
public), deceitful (it suppresses data showing that its products could cause harm), amoral, willing to
break the law to get its way, unable to feel guilt, and yet able to mimic caring and altruism. In a witty
denouement, the film makers look up this list of personality traits in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual
of Mental Disorders. Psychiatrists reading this will have already made the diagnosis—psychopathic
personality disorder.

This film was well thought out and well executed. It does not give an unbiased view of corporations. It's
clear the producers have already made their minds up on the issue and they do a good job of filmmaking
to make their point.

Money is power and multi-national corporations are in no short supply of power to influence global
trade and activity.
If you do believe that corporations are people, you should watch this film to see if you agree with the
producers analysis. If you think that corporations are not, in fact people, you should watch this film. It
will give you some good conversation points to help make your case during your next debate over the
global economy.

The documentary shows the development of the contemporary business corporation, from a legal entity
that originated as a government-chartered institution meant to affect specific public functions to the
rise of the modern commercial institution entitled to most of the legal rights of a person.

The ability of countries to rise above narrow self-interest has brought unprecedented economic wealth
and plenty of applicable scientific progress. However, for different reasons, not everyone has been
benefiting the same from globalization and technological change: wealth is unfairly distributed and
economic growth came at huge environmental costs. How can countries rise above narrow self-interest
and act together or designing fairer societies and a healthier planet? How do we make globalization
more just?

According to Christine Lagarde, former President of the International Monetary Fund, “debates about
trade and access to foreign goods are as old as society itself ” and history tells us that closing borders or
protectionism policies are not the way to go, as many countries doing it have failed.

Lagarde defends we should pursue globalization policies that extend the benefits of openness and
integration while alleviating their side effects. How to make globalization more just is a very complex
question that involves redesigning economic systems. But how? That’s the question.

Globalization is deeply connected with economic systems and markets, which, on their turn, impact and
are impacted by social issues, cultural factors that are hard to overcome, regional specificities, timings of
action and collaborative networks. All of this requires, on one hand, global consensus and cooperation,
and on the other, country-specific solutions, apart from a good definition of the adjective “just”.