82,891
edits
Stakeholder capitalism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
And so it has come to pass: “[[stakeholder capitalism]]” has displaced [[shareholder capitalism]]. [[Wall Street|Gordon Gekko]] is out. {{plainlink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arif_Naqvi|Arif Naqvi}} is in.<ref>Until his arrest.</ref> We, the planet, ask corporations to orient themselves toward ''all'' their “stakeholders” — customers, [[creditor]]<nowiki/>s, suppliers, [[employee]]<nowiki/>s, the community, the [[Environmental, social and corporate governance|environment]], the marginalised multitude that suffers invisibly under the awful [[Externality|externalities]] of industry ''and'' — last, but not least! — shareholders. ''Corporations must not profit at the expense of the wider world''. | And so it has come to pass: “[[stakeholder capitalism]]” has displaced [[shareholder capitalism]]. [[Wall Street|Gordon Gekko]] is out. {{plainlink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arif_Naqvi|Arif Naqvi}} is in.<ref>Until his arrest.</ref> We, the planet, ask corporations to orient themselves toward ''all'' their “stakeholders” — customers, [[creditor]]<nowiki/>s, suppliers, [[employee]]<nowiki/>s, the community, the [[Environmental, social and corporate governance|environment]], the marginalised multitude that suffers invisibly under the awful [[Externality|externalities]] of industry ''and'' — last, but not least! — shareholders. ''Corporations must not profit at the expense of the wider world''. | ||
This view seems so modern, so compassionate and so ''right'' — so ''fit for [[Twitter]]'' — that it is hard to see how anyone can ever have thought otherwise. | This view seems so modern, so compassionate and so ''right'' — so ''fit for [[Twitter]]'' — that it is hard to see how anyone can ever have thought otherwise. Still, this is a striking reversal: it passed with barely a shot fired. Even that trade union for unreconciled boomer gammons, the {{plainlink|https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans|Business Roundtable}} joined in: last year, it “redefined the purpose of a corporation” away from ''the outright pursuit of profit'' towards ''promoting an economy that serves all Americans''. “It affirms the essential role corporations can play in improving our society,” said Alex Gorsky,<ref>No relation to ''that'' [[Good luck, Mr. Gorsky|Mr. Gorsky]], as far as we know.</ref> Chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson and Chair of the Roundtable’s Corporate Governance Committee,<ref>Now I don’t want to intrude here, but is being Chairman ''and'' CEO really the best example for the chair of a corporate governance committee to set? [https://hbr.org/2020/03/why-the-ceo-shouldnt-also-be-the-board-chair Here] is the Harvard Business Review on the subject.</ref> “when [[CEO]]s are truly committed to meeting the needs of all [[stakeholder]]<nowiki/>s.” | ||
We are not sure who asked the Business Roundtable, but in any case we find ourselves taking a different view. | We are not sure who asked the Business Roundtable, but in any case we find ourselves taking a different view. | ||