Paying the Beast to Have a Voice: Investment Activism

In May of 2005, representatives of Corp Watch and Global Exchange, both investors in Halliburton, drew national attention at Halliburton's shareholders' meeting where they spoke out against the company's growing list of labor and human rights abuses. Similarly, Sierra Club purchases stocks in corporations in order to participate as shareholders and promote change internally, and it argues that this is one (perhaps the only, as the might have us think) method available to stop corporate encroachment on planetary life-support. As Global Exchange investors are targeting Hershey over child labor on cocoa farms, the tactic appears to be gaining momentum. But, to what end? And, at what cost?

Forced to compete within the global money-value scheme set in place by transnational corporatism, activism finds itself submitting to a price tag, as do nearly all things which are to retain entitlement to exist. I question whether feeding the beast by purchasing shares in order to have a voice is better than traditional tactics, like the widespread disruption planned for May 1. Even though disruption may be more expensive in the short run, its impact is felt universally and isn't isolated to the internal workings of those corporations in which activists purchase shares. If strong enough, disruption can force more people everywhere to take a stand and can get results faster. Too, it avoids financing atrocities and may even cost less in the long run. A wiser investment might be to fund "strike and boycott" life-support infrastructure which, in turn, also fosters widespread communication channels and lasting community.