Conclusion

In this paper, we demonstrated how annual reports rely upon the silencing of injus- tices in order
to make profit appear to be an unproblematic measure of success. Annual reports reproduce the
dominant discourses which take as given the basic principles that sustain an unequal distribution
of wealth and power and make such arrangements seem natural and therefore, unchangeable. In
order to facilitate trans- formation, the silenced assumptions which promote inequities and
injustices must be revealed and in so doing politicized.
In the previous sections, we contrasted quotes from annual reports with the is- sues that need to
be silenced in order to make such statements appear reasonable. First, we discussed how our
dependency on the earth and nature for survival must be silenced for profit to be an
unproblematic measure of success. The profitability of the extractive and development industries
requires objectifying the earth as a resource and silencing alternative representations of it as an
autonomous living be- ing. Presenting overpopulation as a market opportunity for consumer
product firms masks the threat to environmental sustainability. Agribusiness thrives by ignoring
the long-term risks of supplanting natural processes with artificial ones, and the profitability of
the animal processing industry depends upon the silencing of the underlying violence.
Second, we described the way in which annual reports make war appear to be a productive
endeavor and peace an unproductive one and the silences required for this representation to be
sustained. To present war as good for business, the actual horror of war must be removed from
consideration. To present peace as bad for business, we must assume that corporate subsidies are
more important than human welfare.
Third, we examined the silences necessary to characterize and promote con- sumption as the
ultimate way of life. Such a promotion depends upon ignoring the angst and emptiness that arises
from anchoring our happiness on an act that can only bring fleeting pleasure. Further, corporate
educational efforts can only be ac- ceptable if we believe the function of education is to create
docile laborers and consumers, not public oriented people. In addition, corporate profitability
depends upon constructing natural processes such as aging as undesirable in order to sell
products to ostensibly counteract it, irrespective of the physical and emotional well being of the
consumers. Finally, to rationalize the creation of markets in developing countries, corporations
silence the poverty, disease and hunger experienced by a majority of the people.
Fourth and lastly, corporate celebrations of productivity depend upon silencing any corporate
responsibility for job creation, as well as the potential for work to serve as a creative and spiritual
practice.
In sum, the earths role in sustaining life, our kinship with animals, the horrors of war and
starving children, the emptiness of consumption, the drudgery of work, all must be silenced in

order for annual reports to read as success stories. Profit is up, costs are down, productivity has
increased. For us to accept these measures as indicators of success, environmental damage,
poverty, estrangement from other beings, etc. cannot be regarded as important. However, if we
were to regard these latter factors as having greater or equal importance to profit, then many
apparent corporate successes would become dismal failures.
The people of the Western world must decide whether the benefits we receive from a corporate
economy (e.g. improved health technology, convenience, etc.) are worth this pain and damage.
Do mindless consumption and the production of waste bring us happiness? Should children and
the earth be sacrificed in order for a few to be exorbitantly rich? Only by exploring silences do
such questions surface and can we begin to discuss how to restructure society and the economy
in a more compassionate and egalitarian way. And these questions must be asked for as Rich
(2001) so eloquently states:
We do have choices. Were living through a certain part of history that needs us to live it and
make it and write it. ... We have to keep on asking the questions still being defined as nonquestionsthe ones beginning Why ... ?What if ... ? We will be told these are childish, nave,
pre-postmodern questions. They are the imaginations questions. (2001, p. 167)