SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Capitalism is in trouble – at least judging by recent polls.
A majority of American millennials reject the economic system, while 55% of women age 18 to 54 say they prefer socialism. More Democrats now have a positive view of socialism than capitalism. And globally, 56% of respondents to a new survey agree "capitalism as it exists today does more harm than good in the world."
One problem interpreting numbers like these is that there are many definitions of capitalism and socialism. More to the point, people seem to be thinking of a specific form of capitalism that deems the sole purpose of companies is to increase stock prices and enrich investors. Known as shareholder capitalism, it's been the guiding light of American business for more than four decades. That's what the survey meant by "as it exists today."
As a scholar of socially responsible companies, however, I cannot help but notice a shift in corporate behavior in recent years. A new kind of capitalism seems to be emerging, one in which companies value communities, the environment and workers just as much as profits.
The latest evidence: Companies as diverse as alcohol maker AB InBev, airline JetBlue and money manager BlackRock have all in recent weeks made new commitments to pursue more sustainable business practices.
[...] A 2017 study showed that many companies with climate change goals actually scaled back their ambitions over time as the reality clashed with their lofty goals.
But businesses can't afford to ignore their customers' wishes. Nor can they ignore their workers in a tight labor market. And if they disregard socially responsible investors, they risk both losing out on important investments and facing shareholder resolutions that force change.
The shareholder value doctrine is not dead, but we are beginning to see major cracks in its armor. And as long as investors, customers and employees continue to push for more responsible behavior, you should expect to see those cracks grow.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @05:10PM (5 children)
Not surprisingly, most people do not understand shareholder capitalism. They actually think it is the law of the land. You hear it all the time in arguments, and you hear it on this site as well. Pretty much in any story having to do with corporations and corporate profits, there is at least one person claiming that companies have their hands tied and they MUST act in a way to maximize shareholder profits, and in fact they are legally bound to do so! No ... NO ... NO!! You know who you are, and stop demonstrating your ignorance.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 24 2020, @06:20PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @07:06PM (2 children)
https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/ [litigationandtrial.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @07:28PM (1 child)
I'll see you and up with some SCOTUS: Common Misunderstandings About Corporations [cornell.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 24 2020, @08:02PM
Doesn't apply, Burwell isn't even about fiduciary duties at all, it's a first amendment case.
No one would ever apply Burwell to a publicly traded corporation. In fact the opinion itself actually points out that a religious freedom argument could likely never even be presented by a public corporation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Friday January 24 2020, @10:59PM
Actually, public corporations are tied by their corporate charters. If their charters say they're out to maximize shareholder profits, then they are required to act that way. If other goals are supposed to take precedence, then they're supposed to put those goals first, though enforcement of that it, at best, iffy.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.