The 10 Worst Corporations of 2008

The financial meltdown and economic crisis illustrated that corporations will destroy even themselves in search of profit.

2008 marks the 20th anniversary of Multinational Monitor's annual list of the 10 Worst Corporations of the year.

In the 20 years that we've published our annual list, we've covered corporate villains, scoundrels, criminals and miscreants. We've reported on some really bad stuff - from Exxon's Valdez spill to Union Carbide and Dow's effort to avoid responsibility for the Bhopal disaster; from oil companies coddling dictators (including Chevron and ... Full Story »

Posted by Marsha Iverson

See All Reviews »

Review

Marsha Iverson
4.4
by Marsha Iverson - Nov. 25, 2008

This analysis presents the most significant categories of corporate and administrative failures in accountability, as well as the most egregious violating companies and the governments that facilitate the crises--all in a highly readable and comprehensible package.

Read this for a clear vision of how greed, collusion and malfeasance have brought the global economy and environment to its current disastrous state, learn just how pervasive the damages are, and then start cogitating on how we can hope to survive this mess.

In September, less than a week after the bailout was announced, the Orange County Register reported on a posh retreat for company executives and insurance agents at the exclusive St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California. Rooms at the resort can cost over $1,000 per night. After the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee highlighted the retreat, AIG explained that the retreat was primarily for well-performing independent insurance agents. Only 10 of the 100 participants were from AIG (and they from a successful AIG subsidiary), the company said, and the event was planned long in advance of the federal bailout. In an apology letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, CEO Edward Liddy wrote that AIG now faces very different challenges, and “that we owe our employees and the American public new standards and approaches.” New standards and approaches, indeed.

The world’s food system is broken. Or, more accurately, the giant food companies and their allies in the U.S. and other rich country governments, and at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, broke it. Thirty years ago, most developing countries produced enough food to feed themselves [CHECK]. Now, 70 percent are net food importers.

The world has witnessed a stunning consolidation of the multinational oil companies over the last decade. One of the big winners was Chevron. It swallowed up Texaco and Unocal, among others. It was happy to absorb their revenue streams. It has been less willing to take responsibility for ecological and human rights abuses perpetrated by these companies.

Building nuclear plants is extraordinarily expensive (Constellation’s planned construction is estimated at $9.6 billion) and takes a long time; construction plans face massive political risks; and the value of electric utilities is small relative to the huge costs of nuclear construction. For banks and investors, this amounts to too much uncertainty – but if the government guarantees loans will be paid back, then there’s no risk. Or, stated better, the risk is absorbed entirely by the public. That’s the financial risk. The nuclear safety risk is always absorbed, involuntarily, by the public.

Oil money has fueled violence in Darfur. “The profitability of Sudan’s oil sector has developed in close chronological step with the violence in Darfur,” notes Human Rights First. “In 2000, before the crisis, Sudan’s oil revenue was $1.2 billion. By 2006, with the crisis well underway, that total had shot up by 291 percent, to $4.7 billion. How does Sudan use that windfall? Its finance minister has said that at least 70 percent of the oil profits go to the Sudanese armed forces, linked with its militia allies to the crimes in Darfur.”

See All Reviews »

Marsha's Rating

Overall
4.4

Good
from 18 answers
Quality
4.4
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
5.0
Sourcing
3.0
Style
5.0
Context
5.0
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
4.0
Popularity
4.5
Recommendation
5.0
Credibility
4.0
More How our ratings work »