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The results of this (now outdated) corporate philosophy has been short-term returns rather than long-term value.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
Senate Tosses 'Dangerous Provision' Preventing State-Level AI Regulation From GOP Megabill
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry," said one advocate.
Jul 01, 2025
With a 99-1 vote early Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Senate decided to remove a controversial provision that would have prevented state-level regulation on artificial intelligence for 10 years from U.S. President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that is currently being debated in Congress.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) was the lone lawmaker who voted to keep the moratorium in the bill.
While far from the only controversial part of the reconciliation package, the provision drew opposition from an ideologically diverse group that included Democratic and Republican state attorneys general; over 140 groups working to support children's online safety, consumer protections, and responsible innovation; and faith leaders.
Senators struck Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) AI measure from the megabill by adopting an amendment introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). They voted on Blackburn's amendment during a session known as a vote-a-rama. Blackburn introduced the amendment after considering an agreement that would have watered down the provision.
According to The Verge, the measure that was rejected on Tuesday required states to avoid regulation AI and "automated decision systems" if they wanted to get funding for their broadband programs.
The provision would have been a major win for Big Tech, which has made the case that state laws around AI are obstructing their ability to do business.
Advocates and Democratic lawmakers cheered the decision to strip the provision.
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry. It shows that Americans are aware of the proliferation of AI harms in real time," said J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen.
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said Tuesday that "early this morning, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to reject a dangerous provision to block states from regulating artificial intelligence, including protecting kids online. This 99-1 vote sent a clear message that Congress will not sell out our kids and local communities in order to pad the pockets of Big Tech billionaires."
In addition to concerns focused on Big Tech, experts recently told The Guardian that in the absence of state-level AI regulation, untrammeled growth of AI would take a toll on the world's "dangerously overheating climate."
Sacha Haworth, the executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, credited the "massive" defeat of Cruz's provision to the "incredible mobilizing by advocates to beat back Big Tech lobbying and last-minute bullying."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular