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The results of this (now outdated) corporate philosophy has been short-term returns rather than long-term value.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
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


