dinner in London, a chief executive promised that his airline would soon offer electric flights. A credit provider enthused about increasing financial inclusion in the developing world; a luxury-car executive promised to replace the leather in her vehicles’ opulent interiors with pineapple matting and mushroom-basedleather. They seemed to think such things made the companies they run sound more attractive. They probably felt that they were doing good.
In the face of this rising tide, the Business Roundtable has either seen the light or caved in, depending on whom you ask. On August 19th the great and good of-land announced a change of heart about what public companies are for. They now believe that firms should indeed serve stakeholders as well as shareholders.
Such heretics can now hold their heads up again. This is not simply because of the political climate or the public mood. Some economists argue that Friedman’s position belongs to a simpler time. Oliver Hart of Harvard University and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago see his argument as principally motivated by a form of the agency problem; he didn’t like managers being charitable with shareholders’ money, even if it was ostensibly in the firm’s interests.
Firms in other industries are having similar thoughts. In each business, says Mr Haythornthwaite of MasterCard, a wave of digitisation is likely to lead to one company pulling ahead. Because of that concentration of power, he says, the winning platform will need to forge a close link with society to maintain trust.
Companies are also backing liberal social causes. In 2015 Marc Benioff of Salesforce, a software firm, led other bosses, including Apple’s Tim Cook, into opposing a bill in Indiana that would have allowed discrimination against gay people. After President Donald Trump’s election in November 2016, bosses mounted the barricades over his ban on travel to America from Muslim-majority countries.
The politics of the consumer are not the only ones that firms need to consider; in tech, particularly, the politics of the workforce matter. It was the company’s employees who complained about Salesforce’s links to immigration control. Last year, employees at Google forced the firm to stop providing the Pentagon with, a cloud-computing facility for the armed forces.
...because they know if they don't...
'Climate' 'Change' LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
BRO JUST QUIT PAYING CEOS N SHAREHOLDERS HELLA MONEY AND GIVE US HIGHER WAGES AND HYPOALLERGENIC OFFICE PUPPIES
Um, no. After foisting the costs of environmental damage onto citizens for decades, they owe way more. Way more.
( neo ) Liberal
For climate change, every human being should stand in challenge of it if want to survive!
No way this is just a stupid PR stunt.
Plutocrats with a conscience, nice try, we’re not falling for this BS.
Wir helfen Ihnen gerne weiter .
'I'm from the government (or the company), and I'm here to help.' No thanks. I'm interested in voluntary trade, for mutual benefit by mutual consent, not government mandates or 'help' from a government-chartered corporation. Trade leads to prosperity. Help leads to dependency.
Yeah right
Corporate, charitable foundations are a good example, as are community foundations in the UK. The prevailing orthodoxy is changing, whatever the cynics may say here; the 3Ps - planet, people, profit - will become increasingly recognised...and prioritised.
There is a choice between capitalism and Vulture Capitalism. Paying one's taxes being the bottom line.
No. Sorry. This is communism. Delete.
A total of zero people have been fooled
If they are, it’s only to divert public attention away from their primary goal... profit at all cost!
Yeah right
they're lying
These are more lies. And you're peddling them. The 8th circle awaits you imps.
What is this now a high school magazine. How basic and insubstantial.
you miss the point when you define 'shareholder value' as only dividends. the point is that when shareholders care about more than dividends, then corporations maximize value by doing other things
They did some calculations. Investing in public relations (that is where they settle the ethic related issues) pays off.
alllibertynews Yes it is. It has discovered the worth of and is moving towards a new
No, it is not. It just upped its game of calculated PR stunts.
And how many millions did they lose when that same character stomped on their Betsy Ross flag sneaker? Victims of their own virtue signaling. Until they get back to just making shoes and quit trying to venture into the complex world of morality they can do without my money.
the workforce are consumers. some consumers are not in the workforce. we are here.
Thatcherism screwed all the workers in this country and the Economist has propagated this Thatcherite capitalism for the last 40 years. A good start would be for the Economist to apologise for this.
Finally reverting back to noblesse oblige! Hold off on the guillotines.
The politics of the workforce is more important than the consumers because it is the former that determines the livelihood of the firms.
日本 最新ニュース, 日本 見出し
Similar News:他のニュース ソースから収集した、これに似たニュース記事を読むこともできます。
ソース: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 続きを読む »