I'd like to nominate James Hardie for the title of Australia's Worst Corporate Citizen. In the name of profit for its shareholders, this company persisted in mining and producing asbestos products long after after it was aware that they were dangerous to workers and consumers. Once the game was up, it then engaged in every legal and financial trick in the book to try and avoid its responsibilities to the victims of its activities. Now it's been exposed as being fraudulent in the compensation arrangements it was eventually required to make to its victims.

Now James Hardie claims to have no money. I say that we should levy the directors and shareholders, who have derived profits and dividends from their company's shameful activities.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2550441.htm

Other nominations for Australia's Worst Corporate Citizen are invited.

Probably the worst Morgan. It's hard to imagine a more cynical bunch than this mob trying to lie their way out of their acknowledged responsibilities. Except for their predecessors who continued to produce the product after they knew the dangers.

Honourable mention to the chemical giant who managed to turn toxic large areas around Botany and to poison the aquifer below. They also managed to destroy a large section of Rhodes and the Parramatta River. And god only knows what else across across Oz.

And one for the future, mobile phone cos.

anyone know where Belly is? hols? gone to macquarie st. to engineer the nsw power selloff to the chinese govt? I hope he's ok.

Good point, old pal - he hasn't posted for a while. I imagine he'd have something to say on this topic...

Where is our favourite unionist when we need him?

Morgan, the JH case is one where the unions involved deserve kudos.

I worked for this organisation in the early nineties. They were without any shadow of a doubt the worst employer I have ever encountered.

Their Industrial Laws were in the Dark Ages.

No matter. In a subsequent legal stoush, they settled in full, without condition, the evening before we were set for hearing.

They were/are without conscience.

My list of "Australia's Worst Corporate Citizen,"
is as follows:

1) James Hardie
2) Telstra
3) AWB
4) Gunns Pulp Mill
5) Pacific Brands
6) BHP Billiton

And that's just for starters.

Lintner, Ariadne, Hooker Corp, Bond Corp, HIH, Skase, One Tel, ...

Lets face it, the very concept of "corporate citizenship" almost guarantees this sort of outcome, it divorces those who make the decisions from the consequences of those same decisions. As far as I'm concerned it should be dumped outright, make those who profit from the company responsible for the actions there-of. They currently get paid to be bastards basically.

As usual I have a different (potentially over thunk) take on the question.
Firstly I object to the notion of Corporate citizens . This is clear spin to normalise (anthropomorphise) a non voting non sentient entity...a created Artificial non human entity (tool for borrowing money and make profit without shareholders being directly held responsible for the actions it undertakes in their name) more acceptable in human terms.

This normalising is done to make people more able to identify with corporations by giving them pseudo personalities.

Therefore the problem is one of cause and effect. The cause is the law that created such hard to control entities.
The effect is that it actively encourages ambitions activities that we wouldn't normally accept from individuals. In many cases their size gives them preferences over people as is the case for the corporations Foxy noted. It attracts a mentality that 'it's only wrong if you get caught' and short term manipulation for short term/ selfish goals.

The flaw in the logic is that bigger is always more efficient ….but is it ? Corporations tend to have undue influence over real people.

Clearly a corporation's flaws are largely due to
Inept, greedy or in appropriate management
The selfish aims/expectations of the shareholders (often institutional investors taking the actual people (humanity) even further from the actions and therefore away from their responsibility to others
The latter point is indicative of JHI .
All three management, institutional investors and the share holders ARE responsible for the actions in their name.
Just because it's legal or makes a profit doesn't make it right.
The question could more accurately read which combination of the three players are the most irresponsible under which corporation?

Corporate law should be limited to the point whereby all three can be held proportionately responsible. Until they are “Frankenstein's monster is in charge of the castle”
PS it's good to see the directors being convicted of breaking the law. A pox be on them all!

James Hardie simply trail a long line of corporate thugs involved in the mining industry.

Asbestos related diseases are more easily indentified but spare a thought for the victims of silicosis in the goldfields of WA where one will never know how many were actually "dusted" or how many died of the disease with state government doctors "misdiagnosing" the health problems of those tortured souls, some witnessed gasping for air for decades before receiving a pittance of compensation (if at all) and before succumbing to a merciful death.

Mining inspectors in the 50's in WA issued reports, objecting to the extent of the silica dust in underground mining but the dust continued and so did the human mortalities.

Nothing has changed for today, those who feel a duty to expose the unethical practices in the mining industry are "luddites" as were the initial complainants in the James Hardie fiasco.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I wonder why Meredith Hellicar was chosen as the CEO of James Hardie? My guess is that it was because JH knew it had an image problem and wanted to put a more caring human face on show.

The same thing happened where I work. Don't know whether it was coincidence or by design, but just before we had a serious downsizing a very corporate-oriented woman was appointed to be the head of HR. She was gone not long after we had a second downsizing about 3 years later when she took a voluntary redundancy herself. I'm guessing that once she fulfilled the need of the organisation, the normal gang took over control again.

This type of tactic, if it is one, makes their culpability worse because it means they were always willing to snow everyone on their way through.

The issue of which company is Australia's worst is peripheral to the human consequences of Hardies' neglect of their employees and the Australian public.

I have a somewhat more compelling interest in this issue than anyone else I know. During the Christmas break from uni in 1975-6, I took a job at Hardies’ asbestos pipe testing laboratory, where I was required to handle raw asbestos. I was given no training in how to protect myself from the materials I was handling, despite the fact that as we now know, Hardies was aware of the dangers at the time. I wasn't even given a face mask, though I remember some used and very clogged ones lying around, so I guess they might have been available if I had been informed about the need for them.

There was asbestos all around me: I will never forget the gritty alkaline taste of asbestos fibres in my mouth, and the peculiar way it settled in my hair and made it feel stiff and somewhat brittle.

I am in good health, but every story about Hardies' misconduct is a reminder of the hideous threat they exposed me to. To me, Bernie Banton's inspiring campaign was also a warning of what could be growing inside me right now. When it looked like the compensation fund might cover the amounts required, there was a little comfort in the thought that if it does hit me, I and (more importantly) my partner will not be sent broke paying for the care needed. The news that the fund is adequate for just two more years is distressing.

Hardies have got themselves into their current position through their own negligence and dissembling. I believe very strongly that if compensating their victims sends them broke, it will still be a small penalty for their negligence in failing to protect me and others from dangers they had long been aware of.

With respect, CJ, for the real and potential victims of Hardies' misconduct, the existence of better or worse corporate citizens is irrelevant.

Excellent topic CJ.

Subsequent contributions all build towards a very telling portrait of corporate abuse of power.

As for Hardie's being the worst? The tobacco companies do it for me. And I m also disgusted when there is direct collusion between government and industry such as between Reith, Howard, Downer, Corrigan and Patricks Stevedores. A sorry episode indeed.

The term 'corporate citizen' is the ultimate oxymoron and needs to be struck permanently from our lexicon.

Examinator - you did not over-think topic at all, rather your summary placed the entire topic in context.

Woulfe - I send you all the hope and luck you need. I worked for a while as a lab-tech at a polymer industrial plant (BASF - Quality Control) and there was little in the way of protection for techs & plant workers. I have no trouble believing your report of working at Hardies.

I also agree that there is no first place for corporate greed and exploitation. That's why I believe the more we speak out, the better - even this little forum.

Show me a large corporation that doesn't act like JH and Ill show you pigs that can fly. This is how capitalism works people.

Dear woulfe,

I wish you All The Best.

Examinator and Fractelle as usual have expressed everyting
so well.

My father worked for Good Years for many decades,
under appaling conditions. He died of a massive
coronary in 1970.

Fractelle is right - we need to raise these issues,
as often as possible so that things
don't get swept under the rug.

Just a bit off topic here - does anyone know what's
happened to Belly?

I'm a bit concerned - he should be posting on this
thread but we haven't heard from him in a while.

I agree with mikk "Show me a large corporation that doesn't act like JH"
What about the bulling, the violation of workers basic rights, what about worker's mental problems of cause the bad working conditions.
It is better the Unions to speak for the worst companies than persons with little information.
Tabaco companies or Hardys was bad mainly of cause their products BUT there are some companies which are very bad because they are VERY BAD EMPLOYERS, OF CAUSE THEIR BEHAVE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES.
Antonis Symeonakis
Adelaide

Perhaps we should be seriously looking to see what other commodities we can export. The “big” Australian based mines have an abominable reputation overseas.

South Africa’s top ten carbon emitters include Australian based mines - BHP Billiton, Anglo Platinum, Harmony Gold, AngloGold Ashanti, Impala Platinum and AngloGold Ashanti. The top ten corporations produce 83% of South Africa’s greenhouse gases.

Barrick and Newmont have a JV in the super pit in Kalgoorlie WA. Both are despised in poor nations.

Barrick’s operations have destroyed livelihoods and the environment around the world. Now, communities from Argentina to Papua New Guinea have organized to demand their basic human rights and resist the exploitation of their natural resources.

Billions of tonnes of arsenic, copper, zinc and other heavy metals have been dumped into once pristine habitats where indigenous people had lived since time immemorial.

BHP Billiton and the operators of the Ok Tedi copper mine in Papua New Guinea have again been sued, this time for more than $A5.08 billion damages by villagers on the Ok Tedi River.

http://derianga.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/kirsch-cult-surv-quart-no-justice-in-ok-tedi-settlement-20031.pdf

The lawsuit was lodged in the National Court in Port Moresby during 2007, on behalf of 13,000 villagers seeking compensation for destruction of their traditional lands.

Experts have predicted it would take 300 years to clean up the toxic contamination.

While some remediation of lands and rivers in developing countries are now occurring, it is merely a result of communities finding the courage to speak out.

Nevertheless, in Australia, insidious health and environment impacts from mining continue. Have we learnt anything from the James Hardie tragedy?

Who is regulating the regulators and who is holding successive governments to account?:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21504856-401,00.html?from=public_rss

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24880642-2761,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24594868-2761,00.html

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=9192

Profound thanks to everybody who's responded - I'm sincerely heartened that I've raised an issue about which many of us are clearly concerned.

I confess that I used the term "corporate citizen" with little thought, but I did have in mind the hopeful notion that corporations have legal and social rights and responsibilities to all the actual people who not only comprise them, but also their customers and those who are affected by the activities in which they engage.

Having said that, the notion of 'corporate citizenship' or 'corporate social responsibility' [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility ] is indeed questionable - especially in the context of globalisation.

For example, I understand that James Hardie is now domiciled in the Netherlands in order to avoid any liabilities and obligations it might have under Australian law. Clearly, the actions of this corporation continue to be unconscionable and designed to avoid responsibility for the consequences of its activities.

[continues shortly]

[continued]

palimpsest: << Morgan, the JH case is one where the unions involved deserve kudos >>

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. In fact, the behaviour of James Hardie is a good example of why unions are still as relevant as ever - which is why I'm sure Belly would have something to contribute here.

I also take the points of those who suggest that JH is probably no worse than any number of corporations that will employ any number of underhand, unscrupulous and/or illegal efforts to maximise profits and avoid responsibility for the damagae they cause. I guess I raised JH because it's topical and also because its directors look like being held to account for a change. I agree with suggestions that shareholders should also be forced to take some responsibility as well.

One fascinating aspect of this case is the differential treatment it's attracted in the press - notably the different approaches by Fairfax and Murdoch. From yesterday's Crikey e-mail:

<< This was a huge story for corporate Australia which spans everything from social justice to industrial relations, political regulation and corporate governance.

Never before has a major Australian company attempted such a deceitful dodge of its liabilities and never before has the corporate plod successfully sued an entire blue-chip board...

...Whilst The AFR, The Age and The SMH all ran the story on page one and produced multiple angles, the Herald Sun, Australia’s biggest selling paper, could only manage one story starting on page 41. >>

The Courier-Mail also had the story buried in the business section. It's fascinating to note that the guy who is now Murdoch's chief spin doctor in Australia formerly performed the same role for James Hardie.

Woulfe - I take your point, and all the best.

Hopefully CJ the example of James Hardie will resonate within the corporate sector in relation to ethical and moral obligations. The relevance of unions are indeed emphasised by such cases. I won't repeat some of the already excellent comments in the thread.

I am reminded of the underhanded actions of some tobacco companies. After being legislated (in the Western world) to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes due to proven health risks, went on to actively increase the amount in cigarettes sold to the developing world ie. where legislation was non-existent or at best, weak.

Countries like Nepal where cigarette smoking and uptake was high experienced a much bigger problem with addiction due to the content in those cigarettes.

I am not sure how Nepal is dealing with this issue in more modern times, but these examples show a real need for some regulatory control. How anyone can argue for self-assessment or self-regulation in this sector beggars belief.

Although "corporate citizen" sounds like the product of a PR department, in some jurisdictions it's a literal description.

In "The Long Emergency", James Kunstler explains the process which led, in the 19th century, to the US supreme court granting corporations the same rights and freedoms as human beings. As Kunstler says, a US corporation is essentially a pile of money with full human rights and the sole ambition of becoming a larger pile of money.

Pelican

The following links rather confirms what a couple of my addicted friends have declared recently - that nicotine levels in cigarettes, available for purchase in Western countries, have also increased:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083001418.html

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/11-Percent-Increase-of-Addictive-Nicotine-in-Cigarettes-3A-Report-17502-1/

http://www.ashaust.org.au/mediareleases/060831.htm

Sancho

What you say is true. A shame that all the responsibilities of being a citizen did not accompany the rights so blithely handed over.

Protagoras, those links are so disturbing. One of the mental tricks I used when I stopped smoking was to remind myself that every pack I bought lined the coffers of a bunch of cynical parasites.

Now. Where is Belly when you need him?

Thanks for those links Protagoras.

Those articles certainly give pause for thought. Just when you think we are learning as a civilisation, bingo - there we go again.

Hello again, "Larry Luddite" back reporting but this time on the world's worst corporate citizen.

Following is a link on the latest scientific evaluation of glyphosate (Roundup formulations) soon to be used on large scale field trials for commercial food crops in WA, despite a parliamentary vote banning GM crops. Victoria and New South Wales lifted a GM crop ban last year.

One generally remains indifferent to the adverse findings on glyphosate when published by organic consumer agencies, however, the latest independent scientific report is cause for concern:

"We have evaluated the toxicity of four glyphosate (G)-based herbicides in Roundup formulations, from 10(5) times dilutions, on three different human cell types. This dilution level is far below agricultural recommendations and corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed.

"All R formulations cause total cell death within 24 h, through an inhibition of the mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity, and necrosis, by release of cytosolic adenylate kinase measuring membrane damage. They also induce apoptosis via activation of enzymatic caspases 3/7 activity."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/07/Monsantos-Roundup-Residues-in-GM-Food-Cause-Cell-Damage.aspx"

Our parliamentary representatives have short memories. With emerging new evidence, more prudent nations are adhering to bans on GM crops however, there appears to be no universal understanding of corporate social responsibility, which apparently means different things to different governments. Our governments have again fallen prey to the shoddy corporations which are held responsible for the planet's worst environmental disasters.

I suspect the Pandora box of Monsanto's environmental ills will continue to plague Australia's fragile biodiversity. And what would we have to lose if we told Monsanto to get lost?

"Food-Health-Hope" is Monsanto's motto but for whom? Can we expect to see yet another poison on a platter, force-fed to a nation because of weak governance and a ruthless quest for corporate profits?

I more-or-less agree with foxy's list, but I&#12288;don't think pacific brands deserves to be on it.

They did what they had to. As for the whole issue of the CEO's pay, it wasn't a simple pay hike, she actually changed job. Sure, it was too high, but pacific brands just became the focal point of the economic crisis. There were and are much worse corporate players out there, they just didn't have the unlucky timing of pacific brands who had extraordinarily bad timing.

It was the equity firms who bought into pacific brands, leveraged it to the hilt, took out unsustainable debt, glossed over it all with a new look and new market demographic, then sold their way out with massive profits, who deserve to be drawn and quartered.

It's these equity parasites who deserve to be on these lists. They don't actually contribute anything to society. Love or hate PJ O'Rourke, his recent piece in The Australian did a good job of highlighting the fact that capitalism is a good system, but it needs to be predicated on benefits to society.
If equity firms were an animal, they would be vultures.

If you want to see some really shocking corporate behaviour, I've been a fan of this website for a long time. They do damn good work and must be one of the most courageous and honest news providers out there:

http://www.corpwatch.org/

For example, there's an interesting piece on Xstrata vs aboriginal groups in the NT:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15297

I don't necessarily oppose the Xstrate project, but it's interesting reading anyhow.

It's an utterly brilliant site. One of the best ones around, because it covers the uncomfortable and unprofitable news.