While the world is no doubt familiar with the heroic deeds of Batman, few, if any, know of Bruce Wayne’s unethical corporate practices. In order to balance the competing interests of being Batman and the CEO of a multinational corporation, Bruce has had to cut corners and commit acts tantamount to shareholder fraud and embezzlement. The clearest example of this can be seen in the 2008 movie The Dark Knight. There, an accountant for Wayne Enterprises discovers that the company was “burning through [company] cash” on a cell phone research project that didn’t actually exist, and that entire developmental divisions of the company were being created and disbanded overnight. 

While the company attempted to deny the claims and subtly threaten the whistleblower, the accountant was spot on. In reality, the cell phone research project was a lie sold to shareholders so that Bruce could get funding to create a secret surveillance system in Gotham — a project none of the company’s board of directors would have approved. Furthermore, the accountant was rightfully suspicious of the appearing and disappearing divisions within Wayne Enterprises. In order to secretly create gadgets and technology for his alter ego, Bruce often masked his research behind these fake divisions, dissolving them once his toys were complete.

In reality, the cell phone research project was a lie sold to shareholders so that Bruce could get funding to create a secret surveillance system in Gotham — a project none of the company’s board of directors would have approved.

And Bruce Wayne’s abuses of corporate funds and power as the head of Wayne Enterprises do not end there. The comics are ripe with examples of Bruce’s misdeeds, and recent editions of the comic series have shed light on how he hides his money across a configuration of shady shell corporations that operate outside of regulatory constraints.

A comic scene from Batman #93, where Catwoman examines Bruce Wayne’s finances and notices something odd.

But perhaps the gravest sin Bruce Wayne commits as the head of a billion dollar corporation is the direction in which he chooses to funnel his money. Despite his good intentions, Bruce’s money would be far better spent investing in Gotham City’s society rather than donning a bat costume and punching the very problems his corporation perpetuates. Yet, this theme of grandiose superheroism — using a bazooka to kill a fly — often lifts from the fictional world of comic book pages to the realities we live in everyday. Everyday, corporations and CEOs take steps to “save the world.” Believing themselves to be superheroes, these billionaires put on their bat costumes and cape to fly off and send us to Mars or create utopian cities. As admirable as those ambitions are, these goals are sometimes impractical and, more importantly, often serve to distract the public from the bad acts of those corporations. Corporations wash their reputations with money, and individual CEO’s make charitable moves to salvage and protect their company’s profits. As Bruce Wayne’s philanthropic activities help shield Wayne Enterprises from scrutiny, so too do the actions of American corporations. 

Removing their “superhero mask,” it becomes clear that the millions these companies give away are inconsequential compared to the billions they make behind the scenes.

Three corporations and CEOs serve as paramount examples of this superhero phenomenon. First, The Coca-Cola Company, which portrays itself as a pioneer in healthy living, helping people throughout the world maintain an active lifestyle. Second, Jeff Bezos and his ever growing corporation, Amazon, who are taking on the generational challenge of climate change. And Third, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, whose philanthropy is almost unmatched. But what happens when we look beyond the thin layer of their philanthropy? Removing their “superhero mask,” it becomes clear that the millions these companies give away are inconsequential compared to the billions they make behind the scenes.

A corporate superhero saving the day.

The Mask: Heroic Health Deeds

The Coca-Cola Company is a multinational beverage corporation that generates over $30 billion annually in profits. Despite its size, Coca-Cola has managed to go above and beyond in spreading its wealth at the detriment of profit. The corporation has donated millions of dollars to youth sports leagues, is a primary sponsor of the Olympic Games, and goes out of its way to fund children’s health centers across the world. They are partnered with youth causes such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and through the Coca-Cola Foundation, the corporation has donated 1% of its operating income annually, contributing $186 million in 2020 to over 400 organizations. In recent years, Coca-Cola helps fund over 90 national health organizations, such as the American Diabetes Association and Save the Children.

Coca-Cola also cares deeply about the health of not just their consumers, but society as a whole. That is why the Company has consistently donated millions of dollars to obesity research aimed to “address questions of public health and consumer interest.” Most notably, Coke has given large amounts of funding to universities, leading to hundreds of research studies focused on nutrition and physical activity. Coca-Cola is not just a sugary soda company — they care about you.

Removing the Mask: Reputation Washing

While these philanthropic acts no doubt provide a positive impact on those who receive them, that does not change the fact that they can serve two purposes at once. Once we remove their superhero masks, these corporations’ ulterior motives become clear, and looking under Coca-Cola’s mask is no exception. Despite Coca-Cola’s public push for health awareness, in reality, the corporation’s donations function to wash the company clean of the scandals it has recently faced. In 2015, it was revealed that the corporation had specifically funded research that falsely claimed exercise, not reducing caloric intake, was the key to losing weight and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

One of these research groups was Global Energy Balance Network. Provided with over $5 million in funds by Coca-Cola, Global Energy publicly argued that there was no compelling evidence that sugary drinks caused the world’s obesity crisis. After it was revealed that Coca-Cola was supporting the group’s research, Coke attempted to cover itself by arguing that they had little influence over Global Energy’s agenda. However, leaked emails between Rhona Applebaum, Coca-Cola’s chief health and science officer at the time, and Global Energy Balance showed that Coke had significant control over the research and purpose of the research network.

Once the connection between the two companies was revealed, the public backlash was instant. In response, Coca-Cola immediately put back on its mask. Global Energy Balance Network disbanded and Applebaum stepped down from her role at Coca-Cola. The company released a complete list of all of its philanthropic efforts between 2010 and 2015, which totaled over $118 million and covered a variety of sports and fitness groups, youth organizations, and minority group organizations. Yet the shine of those millions of dollars cannot distract from the billions the company has gained from promulgating false health information.

Yet the shine of those millions of dollars cannot distract from the billions the company has gained from promulgating false health information.

The Global Energy Balance Network research scandal is not the only time Coca-Cola has been caught skewing the research it funds. While Coke donates millions to universities, an article published in the Journal of Public Health Policy in 2019 revealed that the corporation exerts control over the scientific research they conduct through questionable contract provisions. Obtained through freedom of information requests, these contracts allowed Coca-Cola to review studies prior to them being published, provide comments, and even terminate projects at any time for any reason. The provisions also allowed the corporation to keep intellectual property rights over the research, and have been described as “very restrictive for an unrestricted grant” by university scientists. These contracts allowed Coca-Cola to better their public relations, while also giving them the ability to skew not just research results in their favor, but also the very research questions being asked.

And the scandals haven’t stopped there. In 2019, it was reported that Coca-Cola undertook a concerted effort to influence the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s approach to addressing childhood obesity. Leaked correspondence demonstrated the corporation’s plan to essentially capture the agency by influencing CDC staff members and controlling their public health agenda. The corporation lobbied the agency using research they themselves had funded, and worked its agency contacts to attempt to gain access to the World Health Organization. All of this was done with the goal of making Coca-Cola billions of dollars, effectively reimbursing the company the millions they donated to organizations that seemed counter to their interests.

The macro script remains the same: Corporations use superhero philanthropy as a mask to cover their prioritization of profit at the expense of society’s welfare.

Just like other corporations, Coca-Cola’s philanthropy functions as a smoke screen. By donating to organizations such as youth sports clubs and hospitals, the corporation is signaling it ostensibly cares about public health, all while perpetuating the immense role their sugary products play in obesity behind the scenes. The macro script remains the same: Corporations use superhero philanthropy as a mask to cover their prioritization of profit at the expense of society’s welfare.

Amazon: The Climate Change Activist

If searching for a real life “Batman,” one doesn’t have to look much further than Jeff Bezos. The founder and executive chairman of Amazon, Bezos has a net worth of $189.2 billion — almost twice that of Bruce Wayne. Bezos has been a pioneer of philanthropy, personally donating millions of dollars annually to a variety of social causes. Most notably, Bezos has taken on the challenge of climate change. Arguing that humans are currently “in the process of destroying this planet,” Bezos has charged himself with saving mankind by creating the Bezos Earth Fund. Formed with a commitment of $10 billion from Bezos, the organization focuses on fighting climate change and protecting nature. 

Amazon as a corporation has also signed on to The Climate Pledge, which is a commitment to be net-zero carbon across their business by 2040. By signing the Pledge, Amazon has most notably agreed to report their greenhouse gas emissions “on a regular basis,” and the corporation has kept its promise. Annual reports have shown that Amazon has consistently decreased its carbon footprint, and contributes fewer greenhouse gasses than most of its retail competitors. The company is also the world’s largest corporate buyer of renewable energy.

What corporations see in the mirror — a superhero.

In addition to the Earth Fund, Bezos has his sights set on flying us away from Earth’s environmental problems. The billionaire has poured millions into his space tech company Blue Origin, for what he says is to “continue [our] thriving civilization.” The space exploration company has completed four human flights and is committed to “building a road to space” through reusable and safe rockets. Through Jeff Bezos’ hard work, along with Amazon’s heroics, climate change will soon be a problem of the past.

Removing the Mask: A Dinosaur Carbon Footprint

Billionaire corporate CEOs will also often don the mask and cape in place of the corporations they lead, and Jeff Bezos is a clear example. Removing the mask from Bezos’ environmental concerns and attempts to send humanity to space reveals mind boggling conflicts of interests. While Bezos advocates for space travel as a solution to our destruction of the environment, he neglects to acknowledge his own part in creating the problem. In fact, his very solution to the problem, Blue Origin, has been criticized as producing large emissions of greenhouse gasses in its use of rockets to achieve space travel. Blue Origin has also faced backlash for the exorbitant prices the company charges to ride on a ship, being characterized as essentially a plaything for the wealthiest among us.

Moreover, Bezos’ chief corporation, Amazon, is itself a large contributor to the declining health of our environment. Amazon’s carbon footprint has steadily increased every year since 2018, and while its footprint is generally smaller than its retail competitors, that is largely due to their deceptive carbon calculation process. While most retailers include emissions exuded while producing the products they sell when calculating their carbon footprint, Amazon includes only those products labeled with its private brands. These Amazon products, such as Kindles and Echo Dots, only account for 1% of Amazon’s sales. Other retailers on the other hand account for not only the products they create, but also the products they buy from manufacturers and sell directly to consumers. Those products make up 39% of Amazon’s sales. Excluding those products from Amazon’s emission calculation allows the corporation to tout a carbon emission percentage that is wholly unrepresentative of what the company actually emits. 

Those actions create a superhero mask — while Amazon tries to act as if it cares for the environment, in reality it is prioritizing profit maximization at the expense of the greater good. 

All of this deception is done while Jeff Bezos creates a $10 billion “Bezos Earth Fund,” and declares climate change to be “the biggest threat to our planet.” Those actions create a superhero mask — while Amazon tries to act as if it cares for the environment, in reality it is prioritizing profit maximization at the expense of the greater good. 

 An Icon of Democracy and Giving

Another masked crusader is Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook. Through both Facebook and his personal wealth, Zuckerberg has donated millions of dollars to social causes, especially those related to election administration. In 2020, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, donated $300 million to nonprofits focused on aiding local election officials during the COVID-19 pandemic. The gift was the largest single donation by the couple, and was lauded by election officials across the country.

Facebook itself has also taken steps to address misinformation and transparency regarding political ads, creating a team of more than 35,000 employees to ensure the social media platform is not used to illegitimately sway elections. Facebook has also led the largest voter information campaign “in US history,” helping to register more than 4 million people and protect our democracy.

Finally, Zuckerberg has created the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Founded in 2015, the Initiative aims to distribute 99% of the Zuckerberg’s stock holdings in Facebook — estimated to be worth $45 billion — to address major social issues. Since its inception, the Initiative has awarded over $2 billion in grants to charitable organizations. The Initiative has taken large strides in several areas, such as climate change, space exploration, education inequity, and election administration. Most recently, the donations from the Initiative include $10 million to advancements in inclusive education research and $44 million in developing promising technologies to address climate change. Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook play a crucial role in maintaining our democracy, and they have not shied away from the challenge.

Removing the Mask: Misinformation and Control

While Mark Zuckerberg donates large sums of money to charitable organizations, that philanthropy often serves to disguise Facebook’s bad acts from the public. For example, Zuckerberg’s $300 million donation to aid in the 2020 presidential election came on the heels of Facebook’s user privacy and Russian election meddling scandals. Moreover, since 2016, the corporation has drawn intense fire for its large role in spreading misinformation during the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Thus, while Zuckerberg’s large donation no doubt assisted election officials across the country, it also served to protect the company from public backlash.

Furthermore, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has also faced scrutiny since its creation, largely because of the form by which Zuckerberg chose to create it. The Initiative is an LLC as opposed to a traditional charitable foundation, and therefore the $45 billion that Zuckerberg pledged to donate to it will be hidden behind the default LLC veil of secrecy.

This raises several important concerns. First, as opposed to a conventional charity, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will not have to disclose their tax returns online publicly, nor will they have to report any donations they make. This lack of transparency means that there will be no way to know for sure how Zuckerberg is using the Initiative’s money.

Second, traditional charitable foundations are required to donate a specific portion of their funds every year. However, because the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is an LLC, it has no such requirement, and thus Zuckerberg has a much stronger grip on how the money is spent. By choosing a non-traditional method for creating his charitable foundation, Zuckerberg is not just simply donating $45 billion. He is exploiting corporate forms in order to wear the mask of a hero, with few of the costs.

So what does “good” philanthropy look like? In a world where companies often spend more on advertising their donations than actually donating, a part of the answer may be charity where “attention . . . is on those who receive the money, and less on those who give it.”

One who currently works by that model is Mackenzie Scott, whose donations are largely managed by the Bridgespan Consulting Group. Bridgespan Consulting works to help Scott find organizations to support with donations. The Group begins the process by casting a wide net, and then performing due diligence to filter the potential organizations down to ones that fit Scott’s criteria and values. In casting their net, the Group looks for a proven record of experience and success, and speaks with previous and large stakeholders in a particular field to get a lay of the land. Organizations seeking to obtain funding from Scott are in for no easy task. This is because non-profits and other groups cannot apply to her — rather, she has to find them. While this is not necessarily different from other charitable organizations, this can make it more difficult for companies to get on Scott’s radar.

Scott also remains heavily involved in the selection process, doing her own independent research and reading “everything” that pertains to a potential candidate. As an expert in the field of corporate philanthropy observed: “Nothing gets greenlighted without her involvement.”

So how is Mackenzie Scott’s philanthropy different? First, the money distributed by Scott is entirely unrestricted. This means that organizations that accept her donations are trusted to use the funds appropriately, without Scott’s oversight. This is very different from organizations such as the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which is notorious for attaching strict conditions to the funds they distribute. Instead of micro-managing those who receive funding, Scott is largely hands-off because, as an expert argued, “Why wouldn’t the leaders in this incredible work know where the money should go best?” Second, Scott also donates in a less publicized manner than her counterparts. For example, in 2021 Coca-Cola was criticized for spending $5.6 million on a superbowl advertisement that publicized their $1 million donation to Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization that runs the children’s television program Sesame Street.

Scott, on the other hand, is more discreet in her philanthropy. In a public letter published in December of 2021, Scott declined to name the organizations she had donated money to or state the amount of money each organization received. In the letter, she emphasized that she wants to “let each of these incredible teams speak for themselves” and disclose the money if and when they see fit.

“I want to let each of these incredible teams speak for themselves first if they choose to, with the hope that when they do, media focuses on their contributions instead of mine.”

However, Scott’s method of giving is in no way perfect. In exchange for placing more emphasis on those who receive the money rather than herself, she often must use opaque giving mechanisms that are often criticized for their lack of transparency. She also donates largely through donor advisory funds, a novel giving form that poses a host of problems in itself. However, looking at how she chooses to distribute her wealth — putting those who receive the funding in the limelight as opposed to herself — can serve as a helpful guide.

Nowadays, it seems like corporations have captured philanthropy. Large donations do not simply help those lucky enough to be recipients. These “heroic” acts also serve to justify and legitimize corporate power.

Lex Luthor, arch nemesis of Superman and billionaire CEO of LexCorp, provides another helpful example from the DC Comic Universe. Throughout the comics, Lex is seen by the public as a philanthropic businessman who religiously gives back to his community. He donated millions to local charities and helped build public libraries, schools, and hospitals, both with his personal wealth and through LexCorp. However, in reality, those public acts of giving served to position Lex at the head of his community. He integrated himself so thoroughly into the public sphere that it could no longer exist without him. As the city’s reliance upon him grew it became an empire for him to control. This power, along with LexCorp’s ruthless business practices, allowed Lex to create monopolies on public amenities, and crush anyone who chose to stand against him. Using his outward charitable appearance as a mask, Lex Luthor rose to power and became one of DC Comics’ most prominent villains.

Lex Luthor — CEO (and supervillain)

Lex Luthor illustrates the danger of being blinded by corporate philanthropy. To be sure, we should by no means reject every act of kindness offered by corporations — when used properly, they can serve as an effective means for addressing social issues. However, at the same time we must be inquisitive. We must do our best to not only be aware of masks, but to also proactively look underneath them. Otherwise, we will soon find ourselves in the grip of a Lex Luthor.

From The [F]law:

• Donations for Dispossession: How a Palestinian school became the site of charity-funded colonialism

From The Systemic Justice Journal:

• HLS Student, Helping by All Means Possible (Except That One): Corporate Philanthropy and the Capture of “Doing Good”
• Maggie Hagen, Corporate Capture of Nonprofits: Corporate Law and the Preference for Profit