The adage that money can't buy happiness is universally given lip-service, but increasingly it is being implicitly rejected by a modern society with a voracious appetite for wealth. Explicit challenges, like that in the study ``Does Money Buy Happiness?,'' by Professors Jonathan Gardener and Andrew Oswald, are less visible but no less conclusive in their results. Gardener and Oswald study happiness both before and after sudden monetary winnings and find that, ``a windfall of money ... is followed by lower mental stress and higher reported happiness'' (Gardener 20). This influx of wealth need not be exorbitant for its effects to be felt; the study's results state that ``a smallish inheritance of less than 2500 pounds is associated with the highest level of wellbeing'' (13). This being the case, it's not hard to see why materialism and the quest for wealth have gripped capitalistic countries worldwide. Nowhere is the priority given to the lust for material possession more evident than in the capitalist corporation. Corporations exist to maximize shareholder value through whatever means necessary, acting ethically only when this behavior will positively affect their bottom line.
The aim of any for-profit corporation is to generate for its stock holders the greatest possible return on investment. The corporation exists because groups of investors join together to take risks in return for the possibility of great reward. Therefore, the corporation is beholden above all else to maximize its value to these shareholders, organizing its actions in such a way that they recoup as much money from their investments as possible. Similarly, investors fulfill their purpose by investing in the companies that ``achieve the best risk-adjusted returns'' (Chancellor 1). In an article on investment and ethics, the magazine Sunday Business called these two ideals ``the twin tenets of capitalism [that] have remained unchanged since the establishment of stock markets 300 years ago'' (Chancellor 1). Increased profit leads to increased wealth, and increased wealth allows the continuation of the quest for more and greater possessions.
This profiteering mind set has often seemed diametrically opposed to corporate ethics. As Martin Wolf, one of Britain's greatest conservative economic commentators, has said, ``companies should be in the business of making profit, not saving the planet'' (Hutton 1). If a corporation is in the business of maximizing profit, any costs that can afford to be cut will be, and any avenue that can lead to increased income will be pursued. Much of the debate in the Justice Department's case against the Microsoft Corporation has centered around Microsoft's strong-armed tactics when it comes to licensing. Computer manufacturers and users alike complain that Microsoft acted wrongly in forcing them into contracts highly slanted in Microsoft's favor. And yet, why should Microsoft have acted any differently? Microsoft, as a public company, has an obligation to its stockholders, and therefore any tactic that increases sales of its software, and therefore increases profits, is good for the company. Microsoft is concerned for its customers only so much as it affects return sales and future revenue. If a strong-arm tactic can increase sales while not overly harming customer retention, Microsoft has an obligation to use it.
The past few years have brought more and more attacks on globalisation and the mega-corporation, yet these protests have brought little actual change. From riots in Seattle to Melbourne, it seems that every meeting of a global summit is marred by protestors looking to force their ethical views on large corporations. The protests, while good at generating publicity, are not as successful as they might be because they ignore the profiteering motive behind the corporation's actions. The corporation, without feeling, conscience, or soul, is immune to pangs of guilt for people or the environment. Kate Lasn, in an article in the Ecologist, says, ``We demonise corporations for their unwavering pursuit of growth, power and wealth. Yet, they are simply carrying out genetic orders. That's exactly what corporations were designed - by us - to do'' (Lasn 1). Most often ethical behavior would, at least in the short term, be much more expensive than the unethical alternative, and therefore corporations have traditionally been very reluctant to engage in ethical behavior. For decades corporations have acted in whatever way would bring them the best short-term returns; today you need look no further than the billions of dollars being spent on environmental cleanup in order to see what results that mind set brought. According to a recent Washington Post article, ``there are an estimated 450,000 contaminated or abandoned commercial sites throughout the country that pose safety and health risks and act as a drag on local tax rolls'' (Pianin). These sites were damaged by short-sighted decisions that increased profit, and now are unusable without massive reclamation projects. Shareholders who have stock in corporations responsible for this pollution are now left to foot the bill for its cleanup, reducing their ability to profit from their investment.
The only way to convince a corporation to engage in ethical behavior is to show that such behavior will have a positive effect on the company's bottom line. Despite the short-term costs of ethical action, in the long term it is possible to argue that only through ethical action can maximum profit be realized. The classic example of long-term ethical gains is in the effort to prevent pollution. Though a pollution-curbing infrastructure may be expensive, its utilization ensures that a company does not get saddled with needlessly high cleanup costs farther down the road. In the end, it is market forces that will determine whether or not companies engage in ethical capitalism. ``Thus the concept, even if challenged by the British and American right, that companies need to be regarded as having responsibilities that accompany their rights, is being revived by the sheer dynamics of what is happening in the market'' (Hutton 2). Consumers, with their new-found consciousness of corporate ethics, are helping to drive this change. ``The market wants more than just the knowledge that XYZ product works and is competitively priced; it will judge the product by the reputation of the provider, and the ethical integrity with which it has been produced'' (Hutton 1). A Dallas Morning News article from 1998 reported that, ``As many as 47 percent of customers polled by Walker Information said they consider a firm's reputation along with other factors when they buy. A higher 57 percent said they would stop buying because of ethical or legal breaches'' (Kunde 1). Few companies can run the risk of alienating such a high percentage of their target market.
Companies who let ethical issues tarnish their brand run the risk of giving up ground to a competitor more quick to address the issues and keep themselves in line with social requirements. In recent years this has led many companies to completely reassess their reliance on cheap labor, often young and overworked. Whereas companies once turned their back on the conditions imposed on workers by their manufacturers and suppliers, today companies must be constantly watchful, lest one of their factories be labeled a sweatshop. Throughout the early to mid 1990's, Nike fought claims that its products were produced in sweatshop conditions. Chairman and CEO Phil Knight, in a speech to the National Press Club, once said that Nike products ``have become synonymous with slave wages, forced overtime and arbitrary abuse'' (Kunde 1). For a company smaller and less-entrenched than Nike, this association could well have been a death knell. Consumers are clearly looking at ethical reputation when making their purchases. Ethical behavior may be more expensive, but the cost is more than offset by reduced liability and increased customer trust.
Materialism is a notion deeply ingrained in the psyche of America. The quest for ever more land and possessions is the American dream, a concept many average people would say they strive for. People who play the lottery hope for that one quick win that will place them higher on the rungs of society, while get-rich-quick schemes appeal to the desire to quickly acquire wealth. In the corporation, as in individual life, materialism taken to its fullest extent is ethical only to the point it needs to be in order to maximize earning. For a corporation it is the fear of lost sales or future costs that spurs a look toward ethics. For an individual, it may be simply the fear of jail or punishment that keeps one from carrying out ethically and legally dubious schemes that may bring more wealth. Materialism and corporations are uniquely capitalistic inventions, and in corporations one can see the ethos of materialism carried out in a very pure form.