I think it is unfortunate that we have the euphemism “corporate” when we talk about companies and the way that “they” exploit people and natural resources. I think that it is reprehensible to protect the names of the families that have exploited these American commodities. We talk about “corporate greed” for example in the plunder of the Appalachians and the people, when in fact there was a real person with a name at the helm tying all of that together. Someone who should be referred to by name as their particular dynasty and their responsibility is at least moral. They have the option to step down if the corporation was committing some horrendous malfeasance. When we let the CEOs of come companies hide behind a green curtain of “stockholders”we release the human factor from accountability. The events that led up to union carbide destruction of so many lives in India should be referred to by name. If that had been the case during that time, the CEO, the ultimate decision maker, would have been just as concerned with public image, human lives and his name-legacy, as he was with his legacy with the shareholders.
