Greg Crawford wrote:
However, I think part of the problem is our failure to act because we believe in the fiction of the corporate entity - as if there were some personal entity who feels a sense of moral obligation, experiences guilt and acts from a personal centre. Instead we have a mechanism with CEOs who change frequently and have no continuity of entity. In attempting to shame a company into acting, who do we imagine we are addressing? The "entity" is a fiction.
It may be a fiction morally, but it's certainly not a fiction legally. The legal entity is what a) allows them to trade, b) allows them to be sued, and c) is forced to abide by govt legislation. So it's just a case of making it more commercially viable to be morally responsible than to be morally irresponsible. But that might depend on the govt also being morally responsible, and given our current govt that's a pretty laughable concept.
Clare *************************************************** Clare Pascoe Henderson http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
