[1] “Who’s fault is it?”
“It ain’t nobody. It’s a company.”
“Then who do I shoot?”
“Brother, I don’t know. If I did, I’d tell ya. I just don’t know who’s to blame.”
[2] This famous bit of dialogue from The Grapes of Wrath points to a critical issue in corporate responsibility. The question is of pragmatic concern. Who can be held responsible? Who has the ability to make things right?
[3] Because corporations are not specific individual moral agents, even if the Supreme Court has given them the rights of “persons,” it is often difficult to figure out who is responsible for a corporation’s action. Who is to blame for bad actions? And who has the power to do right things?
[4] Is it the CEO, the employees, the board, the bank, the stockholders, the regulators, the consumers of the product the corporation produces, or the voters? There is almost always a blame game involved. CEO’s blame a board that wants a certain bottom line, the board claims the stockholders’ demand for profits and that the regulators for either tying their hands or permitting a specific practice. Others blame the consumers for demanding or at least using the products, while others blame the corporate lobbyists for advocating a system that does not allow more choice in product.
[5] A body is made of many parts. Is the eye to blame when an ankle twists because it did not see the root? Is the hand to blame for not catching the ground before the fragile hip hit? Was the hip not too fragile? Is the mind that was distracted not the real villain? A body acts as a whole, each part interdependent. And so too is a corporation—each member responsible for its action even if there seems no way to have done otherwise. After all, for Lutherans, ought does not imply can.
[6] The essays in this issue, therefore, do not take on the question of who is responsible—but instead assume we all must play are part. These essays go to the root of the issues involved—looking at what we should want from our corporations and why we should want it. Properly oriented the body (all of its parts) can follow that purpose.
[7] To begin, Michael Hanck’s thoughtful essay explains the complications of gentrification, a topic he has seen generate heated debate, even amongst people who want to ameliorate its negative effects on a community. While explaining how gentrification can cause marked harm, Hanck provides a positive corporate approach that encourages dialogue between business leaders, church councils, community leaders, and people who live in the community in order to have greater flourishing for all. While gentrification can harm the most vulnerable in a community, collaboration and honest dialogue can instead lead to a stronger neighborhood for everyone together.
[8] Using a similar strategy that encourages dialogue and collaboration, David Willis-Lorenz explains that business ethics should not pit profit against people. Indeed, his essay explains the parallels between established Business Management practices and Lutheran understandings of human vocation. Sadly, he notes that both businesses and churches are often run by those seeking power rather than those working to institute an order that encourages all to thrive. But happily business and church administration both have the noble purpose of creating an order by which all those involved can live out their vocations. Says Willis-Lorenz, “We live out our vocations, letting God work through us, not only by serving those above us but by serving those who report to us and freeing them to follow vocations of their own.” The purpose of order is not a consolidation of power but a structure by which all are more free.
[9] The last two essays look at corporate responsibility in regard to new technologies. Gabrielle Irle and Thomas Johnston take up the topic of data centers that are used to fuel Artificial Intelligence. In their essay, they take on the topic of the role each of us in the church has in thinking through the ethical issues involved in data centers. Not allowing us to throw up our hands and say that we are not responsible, Johnston and Irle explain what the ELCA is doing to encourage good thinking about A.I., energy consumption, and corporate responsibility. We each have a role to play in this conversation—and we are interdependent on each other as we navigate this serious new issue that affects our environment and our economy.
[10] From data centers we move to Bitcoin and the issue of de-centralized finances. Elsa Marty’s essay explains the history and the philosophical foundations behind cryptocurrency. In the wake of the crisis of 2008 when the American public was frustrated with private, for-profit institutions that were considered too big to fail, cryptographers began a new movement on Reformation Day with a Bitcoin whitepaper composed by Satoshi Nakamoto that spoke of the possibility of decentralized finance. Marty’s essay explains the history of Bitcoin in a way that makes the reader think deeply about the very concept of money as a durable, portable, divisible and aggregable, scarce, and acceptable resource that acts as means by which we can buy and trade services and goods. In short, money is no more than that substance which users agree to use to exchange value.
[11] Marty explains that according to some human rights activists, Bitcoin can be a decolonizing force in the global economy. Marty explains a number of other cryptocurrency types before going into the ethics of the concept of decentralized finance, as such. This interesting article teaches the reader the history and the intent behind cryptocurrencies in order that she might consider the larger issue of decentralized finance and governance.
[12] This issue of JLE requires readers to think through fundamental issues regarding corporate responsibility in regard to profit and human flourishing. Readers looking for more theology on the matter should consider reading, or re-reading, the ELCA’s 1999 social statement Sufficient, Sustainable Livelihood for All.
