Anti-corporate activism holds that the influence of big business corporations is a detriment to the public good and to the democratic process.
Activists argue that corporate globalization corresponds to a displacement in the transition from a highly industrial-based economy to one where trade development is connected with the financial deregulation on the basis of circulation of capital. An increasing number of diverse societies have been changed to free-market structure, leading to displacement. As this expansion has occurred, market-governed regulation has outrun the grasps of the state. Opponents of corporate globalization hold that the government needs greater power to control the markets, that income inequality is increasing, and that corporations have gained too much power. As part of the political left, activists against corporate power and influence support a decreased income gap and improved economical equity.
The defenders of corporations such as Ron Arnold highlight that governments do legislate in ways that restrict the actions of corporations (see Sarbanes-Oxley Act) and that lawbreaking companies and executives are routinely caught and punished, usually in the form of monetary fines.
In addition, from the perspective of business ethics it might be argued that chief executives are not inherently more evil than anyone else and so are no more likely to attempt unethical or illegal activity than the general population. Large multi-national corporations do continue to attempt to erode governmental regulations through in-house or contracted lobbyists who work closely with State and Federal legislators. So as corporate laws continue to lean in their favor, corporate members have improved portals to drive up company profits.