August, 19 2019, 12:00am EDT
CEOs of World's Largest Corporations: Shareholder Value Is No Longer Sole Objective, Overturning Milton Friedman's Long-Standing Theory
Statement by As You Sow’s CEO Andrew Behar on today's historic news:
WASHINGTON
In a 1970 Times magazine article, economist Milton Friedman stated that corporations exist solely to serve their shareholders and must maximize shareholder financial returns to the exclusion of all else. Moreover, he maintained, companies that did adopt "responsible" attitudes would be faced with more binding constraints than companies that did not, rendering them less competitive. This has been the dominant interpretation of capitalism for nearly 50 years. Today, nearly 200 CEOs of the world's largest corporations did an about-face with an updated "Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation" from the Business Roundtable. This statement aligns with the intent and purpose of what shareholder advocates have been asking companies for decades. It overturns the1997 Statement of Purpose which parroted Freidman.
The results of this (now outdated) corporate philosophy has been short-term returns rather than long-term value. In the process, much has been sacrificed. As You Sow stands for the principle that for a corporation to achieve maximize value it must consider all stakeholders in its business plans, including employees, customers, suppliers, and the communities in which they operate and must value, preserve, and promote a sustainable climate, breathable air, drinkable water, and food that is safe to eat. We are pleased that the Business Roundtable agrees and look forward to collaborating on full implementation.
Today's revised statement of purpose by the Business Roundtable says that:
"If companies fail to recognize that the success of our system is dependent on inclusive long-term growth, many will raise legitimate questions about the role of large employers in our society."
Shareholders alarmed by growing global social and environmental risks have been vociferously raising these issues -- and it is a welcome sight indeed to see that the Business Roundtable has been listening. The question is: will action follow?
Recently, corporate trade associations have tried to block implementation of these very ideas, arguing that shareholders who raise social, environmental, and even governance issues are wasting the time and money of corporations and shareholders. Over the past few years, the Business Roundtable has been spearheading efforts to deny shareholders the right to raise the very concepts that the Roundtable has now adopted. If the Roundtable's new statement is to be taken seriously, we expect to see it withdraw its ongoing attempts to eliminate shareholders' voices and welcome the engagements designed to implement these new practices.
Shareholders have long understood that corporate short-term practices reduce the long-term value of companies and create lasting harm to society as they externalize costs and pollute the commons. Will the new purpose compel corporations to shift policies and practices? Will it empower corporate leaders to internalize costs that have led to environmental degradation? That is the test. Shareholders are ready and willing to work together to turn words into actions.
Stakeholder-centric capitalism is not a new or radical idea. In fact, according to a recent Forbes article, there are more than 10,000 businesses operating as benefit corporations with stakeholder-centric governance baked into their by-laws. The article explains, "Upending shareholder primacy has explicitly aligned...management, directors, and investors around their common goal to build long-term value for all stakeholders." Studies increasingly demonstrate something we have known all along -- that a corporation will benefit in a broad range of ways by considering not only its shareholders, but also the company's impact on its full range of stakeholders.
The new Statement of Purpose speaks of "investing in employees." Bravo! Treating employees well, with strong policies around healthcare, sexual harassment, gender equality, diversity, and justice not only attracts the best and the brightest employees, but helps to retain them over the long term, saving on a corporation's single largest cost. Treating employees poorly; stripping them of power and incentive; paying non-living wages while jealously guarding skyrocketing C-suite pay packages may enrich management, but it costs companies, shareholders, and society dearly over time. Based on the new statement we expect to see corporations treating all employees as partners in the future of the company; inviting employee representatives onto the board; reducing executive compensation and raising minimum wages to balance pay ratios; ensuring pay and promotion equality for all protected classes; and listening to employees to increase overall company value and board diversity.
The new statement also speaks to "delivering value to customers." This is another idea that has been at the core of hundreds of shareholder resolutions over decades. Treating customers poorly by making defective products or using toxic materials and ingredients may save money in the short term, but ends in value destruction as the trusted company brand is associated with these practices and customers flee to safer and better competing brands. Safe and healthy products win a customer's loyalty time and again. It is an annuity, and it is why brand reputation itself is often the single most valuable asset a company owns. Again, we welcome this idea and look to see broad implementation including adding customer representatives to the board.
The statement also discusses "dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers." Allowing slavery in supply chains, not paying living wages by suppliers, purchasing from companies that expose their workers to environmental toxicity, and cruel working conditions are practices that must end. Let's work together to drive the inequity out of supply chains.
Environmental impacts on local and global communities is critical. The new statement acknowledges the goal of "supporting the communities in which we work." We are pleased to see that the Business Roundtable understands that polluting rivers, creating toxic air, harming the climate, and depleting natural resources eventually ends in litigation, harms health, damages the brand, reduces environmental resilience, reduces companies' social license to operate, and in the end can raise existential risks to the planet. These costs accrue across society and far outweigh the short-term costs of building zero waste systems and state-of-the-art disposal processes, energy efficiency, reducing toxic inputs, and using resources effectively. Community members should be welcomed to corporate boards. We agree that the definition of "community" should extend out to the entire planet and all interconnected ecosystems. Shareholders have been working to move companies to provide detailed plans on implementation of long-term policies in line with this statement. We welcome the opportunity to work cooperatively with companies to meet these goals.
A recent New York Times article written by an ex-corporate lawyer sums up the problem that this new Statement of Purpose has hopefully addressed:
Under the current system "...corporate executives are legally obligated to act like sociopaths...The corporate entity is obligated to care only about itself and to define what is good as what makes it more money. Pretty close to a textbook case of antisocial personality disorder."
The new statement, if truly adopted into the bylaws of all corporations will enable the humanity of the people who run these companies to be unshackled from the legal obligation to think only of their most base profit motives.
The antiquated notion that corporations exist for the sole benefit of shareholder returns was long overdue for a rewrite given its basic conflict with long-term value creation. Now that the new "Statement of the Purpose of a Corporation" has been adopted by key business leaders, and will soon be in the bylaws of all major companies, shareholders are ready to put these words into action for the benefit of all. Together we can reshape the definition of capitalism to accommodate all stakeholders, including those that have been increasingly left behind to create a safe, just, and sustainable world.
As You Sow is the nation's non-profit leader in shareholder advocacy. Founded in 1992, we harness shareholder power to create lasting change that benefits people, planet, and profit. Our mission is to promote environmental and social corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building, and innovative legal strategies.
LATEST NEWS
Privacy Defenders Decry 'Spy Draft' in Section 702 Renewal Advanced by Senate
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," explained one critic.
Apr 18, 2024
Civil liberties defenders on Thursday decried the U.S. Senate's advancement of the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, which critics say lawmakers are trying to ram through without protection against warrantless surveillance and with a provision that would effectively make every American a spy whether they like it or not.
Senators voted 67-32 in favor of a cloture motion to begin voting on RISAA, a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which expires on Friday. FISA—a highly controversial law that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times—allows warrantless surveillance of non-U.S. citizens but also often sweeps up Americans' communication data in the process.
In a 273-147 vote last week, House lawmakers passed RISAA, including an amendment critics say dramatically expands the government's unchecked surveillance authority by compelling a wide range of individuals and organizations—including businesses and the media—to cooperate in government spying operations.
This so-called "Make Everyone a Spy" clause would allow the attorney general or director of national intelligence to force electronic communication service providers to "immediately provide... all information, facilities, or assistance" the government deems necessary.
"This bill would basically allow the government to institute a spy draft," Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, warned Thursday. "It will lead to significant distrust between journalists and sources, not to mention everyone else."
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," he added. "Regardless of whether the end target of the surveillance is a foreigner, it's indisputable that the people the government can enlist to conduct the surveillance are Americans. And what's more, these civilians ordered to spy would be gagged and sworn to secrecy under the law."
In addition to the "Make Everyone a Spy" provision, civil libertarians have sounded the alarm over the House lawmakers' rejection of an amendment that would have added a warrant requirement to the legislation.
Critics accuse Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and colleagues including Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) of trying to rush a vote on RISAA while disingenuously claiming Section 702's powers will expire with the law on Friday. That's a misleading claim, as a national security court earlier this month approved the government's request to continue a disputed surveillance program even if Section 702 lapses.
"There is simply no defense of Majority Leader Schumer and Sen. Warner's duplicity," Sean Vitka, policy director at the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress, said in a statement. "House Intelligence Committee leaders poisoned this bill with one of the most repugnant surveillance expansions in history, and apparently the administration was too busy attacking commonsense privacy protections to notice. They know it, we know it, and now the American people know it."
"There can be no mistake: Sens. Schumer and Warner just helped hand the next president an unspeakably dangerous weapon that will be used against their own constituents," Vitka added. "And there is only one vote left to stop it."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—who
said earlier this week that the bill would dragoon the American people into becoming "an agent for Big Brother"—on Thursday argued that "this issue demands a debate about meaningful reforms, not a rushed vote to rubber-stamp more warrantless government surveillance powers."
In an attempt to tackle the warrantless surveillance issue, Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) on Thursday proposed a RISAA amendment that would require the government to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before accessing Americans' private communications.
However, the amendment contains exceptions to the warrant requirement in the event of unspecified emergencies and cyberattacks.
"If the government wants to spy on the private communications of Americans, they should be required to get approval from a judge—just as our Founders intended," Durbin said in a statement. "Congress has a responsibility to the American people to get this right."
The Biden administration and U.S. intelligence agencies vehemently oppose the Durbin-Cramer amendment. The White House called the measure "a reckless policy choice contrary to the key lessons of 9/11 and not grounded in any constitutional requirement or statute."
"The amendment outright bars the government from gaining access to lawfully collected information using terms associated with U.S. persons," the administration added. "Exceptions to that prohibition are narrow and unworkable. They are insufficient to protect our national security."
On Wednesday, the House also passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act, which would prohibit the government from buying Americans' information from data brokers if it would otherwise need a warrant to obtain the data, which includes location and internet records. The Senate will now take up FANFSA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Opposite of Leadership': US Vetoes Palestine's UN Membership
Palestine's permanent observer at the United Nations said the resolution's failure "will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination."
Apr 18, 2024
U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Thursday used the country's veto power at the United Nations Security Council to block Palestine's bid to become a full member of the U.N.
While 12 nations voted in favor of Palestinian membership and two abstained, the United States is one of five countries—along with China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom—who have veto authority at the Security Council.
Since Israel launched what the International Court of Justice has said is a "plausibly" genocidal assault of the Gaza Strip in response to a Hamas-led October attack, the Biden administration has blocked three cease-fire resolutions at the Security Council. Under mounting global pressure, the U.S. finally abstained last month, allowing a cease-fire measure to pass.
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, the Biden administration was pressuring other countries to oppose the Palestinian Authority's renewed membership effort so it could possibly avoid a veto, according to leaked cables obtained by The Intercept.
"Take a moment to ponder how isolated Biden has made the U.S.," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, after the veto. "Biden lobbied Japan, South Korea, and Ecuador HARD to oppose the Palestine resolution so that the U.S. wouldn't have to veto. They refused. So Biden cast his fourth veto in seven months (!!) This is the opposite of leadership."
In addition to the nations Parsi highlighted, Algeria, China, France, Guyana, Malta, Mozambique, Russia, Sierra Leone, and Slovenia voted for giving Palestine full U.N. membership while Switzerland and the United Kingdom abstained.
After the vote, U.N. Newsreported on remarks from Riyad Mansour, a U.N. permanent observer for the state of Palestine:
"We came to the Security Council today as an important historic moment, regionally and internationally, so that we could salvage what can be saved. We place you before a historic responsibility to establish the foundations of a just and comprehensive peace in our region."
Council members were given the opportunity "to revive the hope that has been lost among our people" and to translate their commitment towards a two-state solution into firm action "that cannot be maneuvered or retracted," and the majority of council members "have risen to the level of this historic moment, and they have stood on the side of justice and freedom and hope, in line with the ethical and humanitarian and legal principles that must govern our world and in line with simple logic."
"The fact that this resolution did not pass will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination," Mansour added. "We will not stop in our effort. The state of Palestine is inevitable. It is real. Perhaps they see it as far away, but we see it as near, and we are the faithful."
Parsi said that "a Western-friendly senior Global South diplomat" told him of Biden's veto: "Whatever agonizing claim the U.S. had to lead a self-appointed free world has died a very loud public death on the Security Council horseshoe tonight. YOU CAN'T LEAD IF YOU CAN'T LISTEN."
Biden, a Democrat seeking reelection in November, has faced fierce criticism in the United States and around the world for U.S. complicity in Israel's war on Gaza—which Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority, has controlled for nearly two decades. In under seven months, Israeli forces have killed 33,970 Palestinians, injured another 76,770, displaced most of the besieged enclave's 2.3 million population, devastated civilian infrastructure, and severely limited the flow of lifesaving humanitarian assistance.
Israel—which already got $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid before October 7—continues to receive weapons support from the Biden administration, even as a growing chorus of critics, including some Democrats in Congress, argues that the arms transfers violate U.S. and international law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shameful': Columbia Greenlights Police Crackdown on Anti-War Encampment
Even after dozens of students were arrested, hundreds "rushed to take the place of their classmates" and continued the protest.
Apr 18, 2024
The arrests of dozens of Columbia University and Barnard College students on Thursday "galvanized" other supporters of Palestinian rights on the campuses, as hundreds of students occupied the school's western lawn after New York City police filled at least two buses with protesters who had been detained for setting up an encampment.
"Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest," chanted hundreds of students as they marched around the area where organizers had set up a tent encampment early Wednesday morning.
Columbia President Minouche Shafik informed the campus community on Thursday that she had authorized the police to clear the encampment.
As it has been in the past, the school has become a center of anti-war protests—and crackdowns by school officials and the police—since Israel began its bombardment of Gaza in October.
Pro-Palestinian students and alumni have demanded that Columbia divest from companies that profit from Israel's apartheid policies in the occupied Palestinian territories and cancel its dual degree program with Tel Aviv University.
In response to pro-Palestinian demonstrations, Columbia in November suspended the campus chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine—an action that pushed the New York Civil Liberties Union and Palestine Legal to file a lawsuit on behalf of the students last month.
On Thursday, police and Columbia employees took down about 50 tents that had been up for more than a day and disposed of them in trash cans and alleyways—but The New York Times reported later that "demonstrators repitched a couple of tents, and ... recovered the main signage from the encampment as well," while hundreds of students were "still gathered and chanting on the south side of the grass."
The arrests came a day after Shafik testified before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce about antisemitism on campus.
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), whose daughter, Isra Hirsi, was among the Barnard students who were suspended on Thursday for participating in the encampment protest, questioned Shafik about whether antisemitic protests have actually taken place at Columbia, prompting the president to say there have not.
"There has been a rise in targeting and harassment against anti-war protesters, because it's been pro-war and anti-war protesters is what it seems, like, correct?" asked Omar.
"Correct," replied Shafik.
On Thursday, Omar posted on social media two images of protesters at Columbia: one from the encampment this week, and one from 1968, when students protested the U.S. war in Vietnam.
New York City Council member Tiffany Cabán was among those who condemned the university's crackdown on the protests on Thursday.
"Suspending and arresting Columbia/Barnard student activists and disbanding student organizations—including Jewish students and organizations—doesn't combat antisemitism or increase safety," said Cabán. "All it does is punish and intimidate those who believe in human rights for Palestinians. Shameful."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular