…or Why I Don’t Shop At Indigo (or buy Microsoft, or drink Starbucks, or shop Walmart, etc., etc.).
Let’s say there are a number of companies competing in an industry. Through perfectly legitimate and laudible means (superior product, superior service, superior selection, superior business model, you get the idea) one competitor assumes a dominant position in the market.
This is a good thing. This is the entire point of the capitalist system: exceptional effort is rewarded by the market. However, power, corruption, blah, blah, blah…
Biz 101: An organization in a monopoly or near-monopoly position can wield such power as to make decisions that negatively affect competition, the industry, or the consumers themselves.
I do not wish to discuss policy or debate Anti-Combine interpretations. I am more interested in the moral/ethical/social responsibility of an organization with such unilateral power.
Question: Does such responsibility even exist? Does a business (more specifically, those running the business) have to consider anything beyond “maximizing shareholder profitibility”? Or, does a company in a position of leadership and domination have an inherent Spiderman-esque responsibility to act in the best interests of the consumers of the industry it now controls?
Logical extension: who’s responsibility is it to make that call, to define “best interests”?
Let’s say (hypothetically, of course), that I owned a book store, then a chain of bookstores. I offer great prices, service, selection, a cool environment, people like my stores. A lot of people. Let’s say that through normal, legal business practices, I manage to expand my business to the point where I control 90% of the book market in Canada. Where’s the problem? What have I done wrong? Is it wrong for me to find a market where lots of people are buying books but I don’t have a store. So I open up another outlet to compete, is it my concern if the existing bookstores are other mega-chains or independant mom-and-pops? If people like my store better, then they’ll shop there, nothing wrong with that. It’s a business decision, and I have the right to run my business as I see fit. Right?
Well, if it’s my business, I should be allowed to decide what gets carried in my own store, right? Say I don’t want to carry certain kinds of books, like romance or mystery. What if I don’t want to carry books by certain authors, or types of authors? Perhaps those of a certain political affiliation, or sexual orientation, or race, or language, or whatever! My business, my store, my inventory, right?
But, if I’m in a position where I control virtually all of the books sold, my decision to only carry those that meet my personal beliefs basically censors everyone else’s choice. Am I allowed to run my business my way, or does my dominant presence in the market require me to fairly represent the industry as a whole (despite my own preferences) “for the good of the public”? If I am responsible, at what point does it kick in? When I control 50% of the market? 80%? 100%? And again, who makes the call?
Hmm. Not sure about this one. 5 years ago I would have known my answer right away, but I guess my beliefs have changed. Or softened. Whatever, the only thing I know now is that I don’t know the 100% correct answer, if such a thing exists. So talk, debate, think… at least then you’ll be able to defend whatever decision you finally make when you have to.
Once you come to a decision, tell me how you think it relates to the U.S.’s responsibilities as an arguably dominant cultural force in the world. How about our responsibilities as the dominant species on the planet? Hmm. Interesting.
(PS – I’m not saying or insinuating anyone is doing anything, so just relax before jumping all over me. I’m just letting my own conspirital mind wonder about the possibilities, and besides, isn’t it better to debate theory and conjecture before we’re forced to deal with entrenched fact? Is it too late?)
(Dang, I just realized that I didn’t find a way to work in a joke about the little dude from the board game. I must be slipping.)
