Whistleblowing: Hollywood takes a stand

A few days ago, I went to see George Clooney's newest thriller, Michael Clayton. To my surprise, Clooney produces a compelling and provoking film that demonstrates how different businesspeople handle the weight of ethics in their demanding corporate lives. Michael Clayton speaks not only to ethical dilemmas present for corporate employees, but also brings to light the current context on the pressing issue of whistleblowing.

The title character Michael Clayton (Clooney pictured left) is a burned-out and divorced father who works as a "janitor" for one of the most powerful Manhattan law firms. Clayton is called in to clean up the complex mess that ensues after one of the firm's top attorneys (Tom Wilkinson) has had a psychotic meltdown in the midst of a deposition for chemical giant U-North. In the process of trying to keep Edens away from the media, Clayton finds evidence that U-North may have knowingly and recklessly endangered the health of an entire Wisconsin community. This both pushes him toward a moral crisis and puts his law firm in danger of losing the biggest case of its life.

Clooney's character is paralleled by U-North's general counsel, Tilda Swinton. While both lawyers are on the same team, they choose different ethical paths to follow. Swinton's primary goal is to keep people from discovering U-North's corporate conspiracy. Clayton instead has to make the choice between outing U-North and remaining quiet so that his law firm can win the case. Harvard Law's The Record says the film "asks its audience to consider some difficult moral problems, but it does so in an unassuming way that leaves its audience satisfied in questioning the motivations and actions of these lawyers at the end." While Clayton blows the whistle on U-North at the end, it leaves one wondering if people actually find the courage to do so in corporate reality.

The term "whistleblower" originated hundreds of years ago and continues to be prevalent today. In early 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that government employees did not have protection from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution. In response however, Congress introduced the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007 (sarcastic advertisement to the right), which had significant bipartisan support. However, President Bush promised to veto the bill if it was actually enacted by Congress. The bill is still on hold today. Without protection from their employers, employees who out their companies will not feel safe to do so and therefore more corporate fraud and corruption will continue to infest the economy.

Previous legislation has given too many loopholes to corporations. After the end of the 90s and early 2000s with Enron and WorldCom, Congress passed the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which largely failed due to the Department of Labor regulations and various judges' interpretations. Rulings on the SOX act have been so varied that private employees "who expose wrongdoing are likely to suffer punishment and get the cold shoulder from the federal government." University of Nebraska College of Law found that employees win only 1 in 25 cases brought under the SOX Act.

After an employee discovers and reports an ethical dilemma in the company, what happens to their job? Hopefully, legislation like the Whistleblower Protection Act will pass but in the mean time, where do employees turn? A few days ago, the famed "Walmart Whistleblower" Chalace Lowry was given a job back within Walmart after she reported what she thought was insider training by a senior executive. Walmart gave her 60-90 days to find another job. However, Lowry reapplied to over 30 positions within Walmart, the very corporation she reported. "I acted in good faith, just pointing out that there might have been some wrongdoing," said Lowry in June. Lowry is now assisting a legal team, ironically led by the woman tasked at Enron with reassigning their whistleblower, Sherron Watkins, to a new position.

In an MSNBC article, "Whistleblowers who made their mark," government affiliated agencies are the most reported organizations, highlighted in the last several days with the CIA. They are investigating one of their own employees, who has been reporting negatively on the C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation programs. These people who speak out most of the time in a negative light on the corporation, like the CIA agent, cannot fade away into the media landscape. Citizens who have the courage to stand up and speak out need to be protected, so that there can be some system of controlling money mongers without consciences.

Chevron: Welcome to the American Greenwash

A two-minute television commercial debuted during CBS primetime's 60 Minutes last week, including shots of blue skies, loving families, cuddly animals, and amputees running sprints. No it is not an advertisement promoting non-profit donation or Pacific Life insurance. This $15 billion advertisement is the firepower of Chevron Oil for their "Power of Human Energy" campaign. The campaign began last Sunday in an effort to show the oil giant's dedication and recognition of the need to investigate future energy supplies. The mogul's campaign, which argues "humanity needs alternative energy sources, but it still needs fossil fuel," is being lambasted throughout the media for its hypocritical smoke screen. Shot in twenty-two locations in thirteen countries, the ads include actors as well as Chevron workers.

The "Power of Human Energy" campaign is an ambitious public relations move for the oil giant to recast itself as an environmentally responsible citizen. Although it touches on a topic the oil industry once hated to discuss, the ads never use the terms global warming or climate change. The more attention the public pays to alternative energy and the environment, the more important it becomes for oil companies to be seen taking an active role in the debate. Chevron's commercial plays off public emotion and tries to tug at viewer's heartstrings. Environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, have pinpointed Chevron's advertising techniques and called them "greenwashing," a term describing "actions of a company, government, or other organization which advertises positive environmental practices while acting in the opposite way." Recently many corporations producing harmful products have used advertisements to try and reshape their reputation. BP coined "beyond petroleum", Royal Dutch Shell attached a caring DVD to National Geographic magazines, and even President Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" is arguably making way for a more polluted sky. These corporations with busting bank accounts can pay their way through any public relations campaign to try and twist their image in the eyes of American consumers.

The problem is that Chevron's poor corporate citizen stretches worldwide, not to just American consumers. Last Tuesday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Chevron should be held responsible for Nigerian military attacks in the late nineties. International military entanglements do not end there. Due to a grandfather clause exempting Chevron from Clinton's legislation in 1997 stopping investments in Burma, the oil mogul's natural gas operations have continued to bring upwards of $2.16 billion in taxes to the military government the last few years. By doing so, they are supporting the human rights violations of the Texas-sized nation in the last few weeks and its military buildup of the last few years. The current government in Burma freely murders pro-Democracy protestors and Chevron should stand up for the political ideology that allowed it to become a multi-national corporation based in the United States.

It is no mystery that Chevron, like other oil companies, is trying to stay afloat in the changing eco-friendly "green" world. Clearly companies such as Chevron, BP, and Royal Dutch Oil are creating these emotionally-charged green campaigns to do what they can given their harmful industries. Chevron is arguing that the economy needs oil but perhaps there are other sources of energy that are not being explored. For instance, a proactive website "Will you Join Us," funded by Chevron, focuses on different forms of energy like renewables, nuclear power, and hydrogen. Yet Chevron needs to stretch itself farther than creating a website dedicated to energy reforms. They need to pressure the Burmese government to change their oppressive regime. Clearly Chevron is only willing to go so far and when profits could be damaged, human rights may be the opportunity cost.

Oil is not the only industry that faces this issue. The tobacco industry is notorious for funding initiatives and research to prevent smoking. The irony is almost too much to handle, but in today's world, everyone is generally more conscious of the environment and health so companies have to respond to that. Philip Morris USA's new campaign has been a multi-million dollar investment in Potentially Reduced Exposure Products (PREPS), a supposedly less carcinogenic cigarette. While global issues are of the utmost concern, companies like Philip Morris and Chevron can inch their way into the limelight to downplay their products' role in the global problems and instead promote a "globally conscious initiatives." Clearly, the environmental campaigns from Chevron and Philip Morris have been called cynical. The issue again comes down to profit. When companies are responding to shareholders and looking out for personal gain, human greed takes the drivers seat and ethics rides in the trunk. So will the people watching this commercial respond favorably to the advertisement or will they write Chevron off as hypocritical? Chevron Brand Manager Helen Clark says that "it doesn't matter what we say-they're going to feel that way. But there is a large faction in the middle that is really open." With hybrid car sales rising, peaking at an average growth of 81% in 2004, hopefully people will not depend on oil as much in the future.