Article by Zahra Aslanli

Photo by Self Taught on Unsplash

There is no denying that economic power has become an integral part of today’s society; it can not only affect your own life but also your future generations’. Financial resources can decide your education, your livelihood and even future opportunities.

In South Korea, financial clout brings power. South Korea has been able to go through rapid economic development since its liberation and is now considered a developed country. The rapid development was mainly thanks to the government incentivising certain businesses with massive projects and tax cuts. Although initially very successful, these businesses grew to become large corporations which the government is now dependent on. 60% of South Korea’s Gross Domestic Product (essentially their economy) belongs to 10 corporations. These corporations are not based on a meritocratic system, rather, they’re owned by families and the ownership passes down the bloodline. In short, more than half of South Korea’s economy depends on a group of affluent families (also known as Chaebols), with the biggest contributor being Samsung. Many believe that this dependence enables Chaebols to have immense socio-political powers over the country; enabling them to bend the laws and control politicians for their own benefits. Yet is financial influence really the cause of all, if not, most injustices? Or are these injustices inevitable?

There are multiple occasions where the former seems to be true. In 2017, Samsung’s heir (and de-facto leader) Lee JaeYoung was convicted of bribing the former president in hopes of gaining government support for a merger. Lee JaeYoung’s imprisonment was not as simple as it should’ve been. Despite being convicted to five years, his case was suspended a year later. He then faced another 2 ½ years in prison however he was granted a presidential pardon. The reason being, the Korean economy needs Samsungs, and Samsung needs an heir. Imprisoning Lee JaeYoung was imprisoning “the Crown Prince of South Korea”. The government relies on Samsung, and as a result those who own the corporation get special treatment.

However, South Korea is only a part of a bigger, more global problem. Joel Balkan explains how corporations have become so powerful that they control aspects of society which were previously under the control of “the public sphere”. Balkan believes that corporations have so much power that they’re able to control public institutions and even replace them. Just like how South Korea needs Samsung to keep their economy going, the UK economy needs Shell to keep extracting oil as the biggest gas and oil provider owning 10% of the market. Both the corporations themselves and governments are aware of this dependence as a result there’s a lack of regulation on what corporations can and cannot do. Moreover, as Balkan explains, with the rise of technology and globalisation, the problem is no longer limited to one nation, rather it’s become global. With the creation of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), corporations have even more deregulated powers. Just like how there was a lack of control over Chaebols in Korea, there is a lack of control over corporations by countries, and unions (such as the EU).

It is crucial to understand the source of corporate power. Corporations get their strength from consumer demands–whether for food, oil, technology or labor. As long as these needs persist, corporations will continue to flourish. Conversely, public disapproval can diminish their power.

This is why organizations such as Greenpeace and XR pose a threat to corporate dominance. Greenpeace has disrupted Shell’s operations by boarding their oil platforms. In response, corporations take on “social responsibility” to mitigate public discontent. Corporations are trying to use their power to enforce positive change in society and environment. Shell, for instance, is investing in cleaner means of sourcing energy to help customers reduce their carbon footprint. Unilever plans to cut their plastic footprint by “30% by 2026 and 40% by 2028”. Corporations are therefore contributing to resolving global injustices facing us today.

Does this shift toward corporate responsibility exempt corporations from blame? Whilst it is evident that corporations are embracing social responsibility, the impact of these initiatives are often minimal. They’re not nearly enough to better, yet alone to compensate for the damage already being done. Unilever originally aimed to half their plastic use by 2025, but later scaled back this commitment. Shell is suing Greenpeace to curb their protests. The fundamental issue remains: as long as the primary objective of corporations is profit maximization and wealth accumulation, injustices will continue on no matter how much responsibility they take on.

Related