Namaskar is a traditional yogic greeting that means, “I greet the divinity within you with all the charms of my mind and the cordiality of my heart.”
We are divine beings, each one of us. We have, in addition to physical and mental qualities, spiritual qualities. Our journey, as individuals and as members of a global community struggling against economic globalization and injustice, is two-fold. It is personal, and it is collective.

Capitalism teaches the superiority of the individual: “I win, you lose.” Or, “I win and it really doesn’t matter what happens to the rest of the world.” What are the lessons we teach our children in school? “Get a good education, then get a good job and make some money.” Western education offers no clear message of social responsibility. We have responsibilities to others as well as individual rights.

Compassion is the most important quality for a spiritualist to have. We need to feel compassion for others and to serve those who are less fortunate than ourselves.

So our journey is both external and internal. Just as we learn from all our personal experiences, so we also learn from the collective struggle for social justice.

I teach prisoners, as Father Jim Consedine does [another speaker at the conference]. I teach them meditation and yoga every week, and personally I find it very gratifying, because they are in a process of transformation. I am inspired by the example that my spiritual master, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar <../../sarkar/default.htm>, gave when the first person he chose to teach meditation to was an infamous criminal in Calcutta who later became a great saint and spiritual visionary. So I think, “If that was the person who he felt was most worthy of spiritual transformation, then who am I to judge the spiritual potential of others?”

We are all brothers and sisters. When I was a child, I often used to fight with my brother and sister, but of course we remained family. In the same way, human beings have lots of differences, and I’m going to fight and struggle against injustice. But I always want to remember that I’m fighting and struggling against the bad actions that people do and not against who they are. Because they are, forever, my brothers and sisters, too.

I accept a universal definition of God: that which is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. For some, this may seem a rather standard dictionary definition of the Supreme Being. But I think the definition is very revolutionary. If He is everywhere, then that means He is right inside me and He is right inside you and He is right inside our planet earth.

God is both He and She. I use the male pronoun unnecessarily, because I have trouble calling the One I feel so close to an “It”. Both the masculine and the feminine are equally present in that Supreme Being — it is we who are limited by our concepts of male and female.
If that Being is here in me and here in you, then that means I have to act accordingly, I have to work accordingly. I cannot be a spiritual capitalist, one who says, “I’m going to go to a nice monastery, to a beautiful forest retreat, to the mountains, I’m only going to do my spiritual journey.” That’s capitalism. That’s selfishness.

In my opinion, spirituality is everywhere. In some places, of course, you will feel more spiritual energy. But you don’t have to go on a pilgrimage to any place, because if you close your eyes, wherever you are, you can find all that you seek. So that inner journey is more important than any pilgrimage. Yes, I like to go to the mountains sometimes, to the forests, I love nature, and clearly there is more spiritual energy in some places, such as this beautiful Maori center. But that’s relative. We shouldn’t stop our progress because we’re not in a spiritual place. I’ll meditate four times a day wherever I am.

Consumerism and materialism is what our current society teaches us. It goes like this: “Buy a new pair of Nike tennis shoes and you’ll be happy. Buy a new car and you’ll be happy.” (You’ll probably get a woman with the car, because most advertisements have a beautiful woman next to the car, so obviously you’re going to get that, too!)

That’s a lie. These capitalist lies are what we have to stop, because they are destroying human minds, convincing people that money is the secret to happiness. Television, film, radio, magazines all get money from advertisers to spread these lies. When our minds become clear and strong in meditation, in spiritual practices, then we can begin to see through the veil of lies and legitimacy. Happiness doesn’t come from any material thing; it comes from your own heart. That’s a fundamental truth.

Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar <../../sarkar/default.htm>, the founder of Prout <../5fpp/5fpp.htm>, was both a great spiritual master and also a revolutionary. I first met him in January 1978 in a prison cell in India where he was a political prisoner for seven years. After his release, the US, UK, Australia and some other rich countries refused to give him a visa because they said he was a dangerous revolutionary.

In August 1979, he came to Bangkok, Thailand where I was working. I had the wonderful opportunity to spend seven days with him. One very dark night, what I would call a very “Tantric” night, three of us went with him on a walk in a park. At one point he stopped and explained why the dictator President Ferdinand Marcos had just deported him from the Philippines:

“ They say I am a dangerous man. But I am not a dangerous man; I am not a strong man. Imagine, they are scared of me, and I am only five feet two inches tall!
“ You know how a fish store smells? Ugh! Yet some people like that ‘fishy’ smell. Only those who like the ‘fishy’ smell of selfishness are afraid of me. Selfishness is a mental disease and they know that Prout gives no scope for selfishness.”

We are trying to create a world that limits the expression of that particular mental disease. I used to work in a psychiatric hospital, and I have friends with all kinds of mental diseases. They need a certain kind of care. But we must not allow people with the mental disease of selfishness to run our economies and our countries, to dictate the world that our children can have.

As spiritualists, we have to unite. We have to unite with other spiritualists, like these great people beside me. We have to unite with people of all expressions and beliefs and faiths. I believe the only “ism” that we can support is universalism, the idea that we are one human family. You have your beliefs, and I have mine, but we are all moving in the same direction. If we climb a mountain, it doesn’t matter from which side of the mountain you start your climb; we’re all going to reach the summit together.

I believe that spiritual practices are fundamental to the spiritual path. They are what you actually do to get there, whether they take the form of some kind of meditation or some kind of deep personal inner reflection. It is gratifying to work for an organization that teaches meditation free of charge. Whatever type of meditation we do, our goal is to become better people. An ideal human being, a saint-like person, a God-like person – who cares what their faith is, who cares whether they are Muslim or Jew or Catholic or Protestant or a yogi? When we become ideal human beings, then we’ll all be one.

To unite the moralists, to unite those people who are fighting against injustice, against exploitation, is our goal. Our spiritual practices, our spiritual vision, our spiritual love and compassion are fundamental to get there. They are our strength, our inner sustenance.

Logically, if we look at the world, global ecological destruction is a very real possibility. Spiritually, though, I know we’re going to make it. P. R. Sarkar said, “Your future is bright. It is brighter than gold, it is brighter than platinum, it is brighter than anything you can ever imagine. And you’ll see it with your own eyes.”

How will it happen? I don’t know. And whether it happens this year, or next year, or later, I’m going to continue doing what I’m doing now: fighting for social justice, working against capitalist exploitation, doing my spiritual practices and encouraging everyone else in this human family to learn and try them, too. Because we need inner peace and we need global peace. Without one, we have an angry world. Without the other, we have people dying completely unnecessarily. That’s a crime. That’s totally unacceptable. Humanity is bleeding. We must awaken. We must work together. We must make a better world. We don’t have another option.

After 23 years as a corporate securities attorney-advising large corporations on securities offerings and mergers and acquisitions – I left my position as partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom because I was disturbed by the game. I realized that the many social ills created by corporations stem directly from corporate law. It dawned on me that the law, in its current form, actually inhibits executives and corporations from being socially responsible. So in June 2000 I quit my job and decided to devote the next phase of my life to making people aware of this problem. My goal is to build consensus to change the law so it encourages good corporate citizenship, rather than inhibiting it.

The provision in the law I am talking about is the one that says the purpose of the corporation is simply to make money for shareholders. Every jurisdiction where corporations operate has its own law of corporate governance. But remarkably, the corporate design contained in hundreds of corporate laws throughout the world is nearly identical. That design creates a governing body to manage the corporation-usually a board of directors-and dictates the duties of those directors. In short, the law creates corporate purpose. That purpose is to operate in the interests of shareholders. In Maine, where I live, this duty of directors is in Section 716 of the business corporation act, which reads:

…the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders….

Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.

Section 716 dedicates the corporation to the pursuit of its own self-interest (and equates corporate self-interest with shareholder self-interest). No mention is made of responsibility to the public interest. Section 716 and its counterparts explain two things. First, they explain why corporations find social issues like human rights irrelevant–because they fall outside the corporation’s legal mandate. Second, these provisions explain why executives behave differently than they might as individual citizens, because the law says their only obligation in business is to make money.

This design has the unfortunate side effect of largely eliminating personal responsibility. Because corporate law generally regulates corporations but not executives, it leads executives to become inattentive to justice. They demand their subordinates “make the numbers,” and pay little attention to how they do so. Directors and officers know their jobs, salaries, bonuses, and stock options depend on delivering profits for shareholders.

Companies believe their duty to the public interest consists of complying with the law. Obeying the law is simply a cost. Since it interferes with making money, it must be minimized-using devices like lobbying, legal hairsplitting, and jurisdiction shopping. Directors and officers give little thought to the fact that these activities may damage the public interest.

Lower-level employees know their livelihoods depend upon satisfying superiors’ demands to make money. They have no incentive to offer ideas that would advance the public interest unless they increase profits. Projects that would serve the public interest–but at a financial cost to the corporation–are considered naive.

Corporate law thus casts ethical and social concerns as irrelevant, or as stumbling blocks to the corporation’s fundamental mandate. That’s the effect the law has inside the corporation. Outside the corporation the effect is more devastating. It is the law that leads corporations to actively disregard harm to all interests other than those of shareholders. When toxic chemicals are spilled, forests destroyed, employees left in poverty, or communities devastated through plant shutdowns, corporations view these as unimportant side effects outside their area of concern. But when the company’s stock price dips, that’s a disaster. The reason is that, in our legal framework, a low stock price leaves a company vulnerable to takeover or means the CEO’s job could be at risk.
In the end, the natural result is that corporate bottom line goes up, and the state of the public good goes down. This is called privatizing the gain and externalizing the cost.

This system design helps explain why the war against corporate abuse is being lost, despite decades of effort by thousands of organizations. Until now, tactics used to confront corporations have focused on where and how much companies should be allowed to damage the public interest, rather than eliminating the reason they do it. When public interest groups protest a new power plant, mercury poisoning, or a new big box store, the groups don’t examine the corporations’ motives. They only seek to limit where damage is created (not in our back yard) and how much damage is created (a little less, please).
But the where-and-how-much approach is reactive, not proactive. Even when corporations are defeated in particular battles, they go on the next day, in other ways and other places, to pursue their own private interests at the expense of the public.

I believe the battle against corporate abuse should be conducted in a more holistic way. We must inquire why corporations behave as they do, and look for a way to change these underlying motives. Once we have arrived at a viable systemic solution, we should then dictate the terms of engagement to corporations, not let them dictate terms to us.
We must remember that corporations were invented to serve mankind. Mankind was not invented to serve corporations. Corporations in many ways have the rights of citizens, and those rights should be balanced by obligations to the public.

Many activists cast the fundamental issue as one of “corporate greed,” but that’s off the mark. Corporations are incapable of a human emotion like greed. They are artificial beings created by law. The real question is why corporations behave as if they are greedy. The answer is the design of corporate law.
We can change that design. We can make corporations more responsible to the public good by amending the law that says the pursuit of profit takes precedence over the public interest. I believe this can best be achieved by changing corporate law to make directors personally responsible for harms done.

Let me give you a sense of how director responsibility works in the current system. Under federal securities laws, directors are held personally liable for false and misleading statements made in prospectuses used to sell securities. If a corporate prospectus contains a material falsehood and investors suffer damage as a result, investors can sue each director personally to recover the damage. Believe me, this provision grabs the attention of company directors. They spend hours reviewing drafts of a prospectus to ensure it complies with the law. Similarly, everyone who works on the prospectus knows that directors’ personal wealth is at stake, so they too take great care with accuracy.

That’s an example of how corporate behavior changes when directors are held personally responsible. Everyone in the corporation improves their game to meet the challenge. The law has what we call an in terrorem effect. Since the potential penalties are so severe, directors err on the side of caution. While this has not eliminated securities fraud, it has over the years reduced it to an infinitesimal percentage of the total capital raised.

I propose that corporate law be changed in a similar manner–to make individuals responsible for seeing that the pursuit of profit does not damage the public interest.
To pave the way for such a change, we must challenge the myth that making profits and protecting the public interest are mutually exclusive goals. The same was once said about profits and product quality, before Japanese manufacturers taught us otherwise. If we force companies to respect the public interest while they make money, business people will figure out how to do both.

The specific change I suggest is simple: add 26 words to corporate law and thus create what I call the “Code for Corporate Responsibility.” In Maine, this would mean amending section 716 to add the following clause. Directors and officers would still have a duty to make money for shareholders, … but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates or the dignity of its employees.

This simple amendment would effect a dramatic change in the underlying mechanism that drives corporate malfeasance. It would make individuals responsible for the damage companies cause to the public interest, and would be enforced much the same way as securities laws are now. Negligent failure to abide by the code would result in the corporation, its directors, and its officers being liable for the full amount of the damage they cause. In addition to civil liability, the attorney general would have the right to criminally prosecute intentional acts. Injunctive relief-which stops specific behaviors while the legal process proceeds-would also be available.

Compliance would be in the self-interest of both individuals and the company. No one wants to see personal assets subject to a lawsuit. Such a prospect would surely temper corporate managers’ willingness to make money at the expense of the public interest. Similarly, investors tend to shy away from companies with contingent liabilities, so companies that severely or repeatedly violate the Code for Corporate Responsibility might see their stock price fall or their access to capital dry up.

Many would say such a code could never be enacted. But they’re mistaken. I take heart from a 2000 Business Week/Harris Poll that asked Americans which of the following two propositions they support more strongly:

Corporations should have only one purpose–to make the most profit for their shareholders–and pursuit of that goal will be best for America in the long run.

–or–

Corporations should have more than one purpose. They also owe something to their workers and the communities in which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities.

An overwhelming 95 percent of Americans chose the second proposition. Clearly, this finding tells us that our fate is not sealed. When 95 percent of the public supports a proposition, enacting that proposition into law should not be impossible.

If business people resist the notion of legal change, we can remind them that corporations exist only because laws allow them to exist. Without these laws, owners would be fully responsible for debts incurred and damages caused by their businesses. Because the public creates the law, corporations owe their existence as much to the public as they do to shareholders. They should have obligations to both. It simply makes no sense that society’s most powerful citizens have no concern for the public good.

It also makes no sense to endlessly chase after individual instances of corporate wrongdoing, when that wrongdoing is a natural result of the system design. Corporations abuse the public interest because the law tells them their only legal duty is to maximize profits for shareholders. Until we change the law of corporate governance, the problem of corporate abuse can never fully be solved.

Robert Hinkley rchinkley@media2.hypernet.com , formerly a partner at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom , now lives in Brooklin, Maine and is working to promote the Code. A Minnesota grassroots group has formed to work on the code (see www.C4CR.org Other information on the Code can be found at www.CitizenWorks.org Reprinted with permission from Business Ethics www.business-ethics.com