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: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 24 2020, @07:51PM (2 children)
The way I've seen this done, most often, is hiding the air pollution like scrubbers that "accidentally" get left off more than they are supposed to, or straight up relocating factories overseas or anywhere with a more pollution friendly legal structure.
Number two is the old operate until you're caught and then legally collapse and bankrupt the entity that got caught - taking all the profits that were sequestered during operations to start up a fresh new (and often government subsidized) entity and do it all over again.
Forcing personal responsibility tied to corporate operations would at least slow down the repeat offenders.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Friday January 24 2020, @10:38PM (1 child)
Yes, it does require serious enforcement. So do laws against bank robbery.
The problem has been that there hasn't been serious enforcement, so the result has been largely PR.
Also, the pollution laws don't require that the company pay to clean up the pollution they allow to escape, but rather that they not let it escape. This is a mistake. If taxes on pollution and non-recycled waste were the enforcement, governments would have a lot more interest in enforcement. (Unfortunately, this would have the bad effect of causing the government to not want the pollution curtailed. You don't get just one effect.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 26 2020, @02:08PM
Except, of course, where those pollution laws do require clean up (spills are a common one where clean up is required). It's worth noting here that a lot of pollution simply isn't economical to clean up. If I emit a bunch of mercury vapor to the air from my shitty coal power plant, there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle without ridiculous effort, such as digging up vast tracks of top soil and removing the trace amounts of mercury.
Non-recycled waste is not pollution! You should not be equating those two. We can always recycle trash later with better technologies and actual need for recycling.