Group of top CEOs says maximizing shareholder profits no longer can be the primary goal of corporati

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

The organization representing the nation’s most powerful chief executives is rewriting how it views the purpose of a corporation, updating its decades-old endorsement of the theory that shareholders’ interests should come above all else.

The new statement, released Monday by the Business Roundtable, suggests balancing the needs of a company’s various constituencies and comes at a time of widening income inequality, rising expectations from the public for corporate behavior and proposals from Democratic lawmakers that aim to revamp or even restructure American capitalism.

“Americans deserve an economy that allows each person to succeed through hard work and creativity and to lead a life of meaning and dignity,” reads the statement from the organization, which is chaired by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

The group says its members “share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders,” and commit to doing well by their customers, employees, suppliers and local communities. “Each of our stakeholders is essential,” the group adds. “We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/19/lobbying-group-powerful-ceos-is-rethinking-how-it-defines-corporations-purpose/

[dhol82]

1. However, I'm sure they won't touch the salary aspect

That will just keep going obscenely up and up.

[ananda]

14. Agree

Both shareholder interests and salaries should be addressed.

Put workers and consumers first is always a good idea.

[blm]

2. Dimon admits that Elizabeth Warren and Katie Porter are wearing him down.

Heheh

[Lonestarblue]

15. One of the reasons I support Warren!

Corporations are the ones running government policy, not voters, and that imbalance needs to change.

Business schools churning out MBAs also need to stop teaching that the only thing that matters is maximizing profits and shareholder value. When I studied for my MBA a few decades ago, shareholder value was only one of the three factors of corporate management. The other two were customer value and employees. Today’s schools are teaching nothing less than institutionalized greed.

[Freethinker65]

3. So they are admitting they did not previously give a fuck? This is just a PR stunt.

Words are nice, actions matter.

[cstanleytech]

6. Agreed. Until the wages for average workers raises enough to lift enough people out of poverty

its meaningless bullshit.

[PandoraAwakened]

33. Exactly.

I read this release as a nervous laugh---"Ruh-roh, the gig is up, boys. Quick, put out a statement! Put some distance between us and the angry masses. Maybe we can ride the gravy train for another year or so?"

[whopis01]

4. Unless the system is changed to incentivize different behavior, nothing will change. n/t

[cstanleytech]

20. Exactly and one way to do that would be by linking a corporations taxes to

the number of employees (including temp workers) earning anything less than 500% above the poverty level.
The more employees the have that are earning that much or above it then the lower their taxes.
Hell, I would not even object if they paid no taxes as long as they paid most if not all of their employees a wage where they did not have to struggle to stay afloat.

[Newest Reality]

5. Exactly!

Do they really mean it though?

Has the light bulb gone on to illuminate the plain fact that you can no longer ravage the commons and suck things dry like a really big mosquito? There are parasites that, at least, don't kill the host, which is beneficial to both sides. Or, is this yet another PR campaign? We seriously need to know that.

We need some sort of reformation in the corporate charters that is enlightened to the interdependence of things, people and environments, not a predominantly one-sided affair that serves as a gargantuan vacuum cleaner sucking the wealth, life and meaning out of the people.

Since we, (the people) provide the infrastructure, workers and are the consumers of the products and services, the reciprocal nature of these interactions must be acknowledged because a corporation without those factors would not even exist in the first place.

Some use the term socialism, I would deprecate that now because the term has been sullied and maligned and is misunderstood. Rather, I would call it our commons, as in, we have something in common. There really should be a requirement that a corporation has just as much of a duty to the commons that supports it as it does to the profit aspect of providing for its shareholders. That would be a balancing act, but it would be far more realistic and potentially beneficial then the parasitic ghost, (the corporate "person" ) for the culture and the people.

I would even point to the effects on the climate and environment of irrefutable proof that the current, corporate paradigm comes with a gigantic, existential cost factor that we end up paying for in many, many ways. Just look at it. Should they continue to get away with it if it means the end of life on the planet?

[pecosbob]

7. Nightmares about peasants with sharp, nasty, pointy objects, eh?

[blm]

16. And having to answer on camera questions posed by Warren and Porter

[pecosbob]

18. Definitely could be seen as sharp pointy objects (persons) by those under their scrutiny

[bucolic_frolic]

8. as long as we can rape and incest the environment

they really should consult Steve King. He has some views on everything.

And yeah, i know, they do try to reduce waste, and minimize pollution, some of them, but have you noticed the plastics in the world? and trash?

There is nothing more green than high quality durable products you don't have to replace every 3 years.

[turbinetree]

9. SO now that they have gotten the 1200% pay rasie over the years and the worker

Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2019, 01:42 PM - Edit history (2)

got a measly 12% of the years, hey Dimon ,we (taxpayers) bailed your ass out and other banks out to the tune of over 750 billion in the last crises, and the people still got hosed......................so don't give me your vision of income equality.........................I like the lady from Massachusetts that says you should pay...........................every dime you owe..........

Let's review your BS Dimon.................by someone who by the way has more standing of facts......................

[Perseus]

10. Mark Cuban's warning on inequality and "They will come with pitch and forks at us"

Must be starting to resonate.

I can't find the article he wrote, I think in 2015, where he warns his fellow billionaires about wealth inequality and greed, and the need to so something about it

There are many versions of what happened during the French Revolution, but the main reason the people were so easily incited to go against royalty and the upper class was "wealth inequality", some had a lot, and the rest had none with zero chances to move ahead. No one is saying we need a system where those who work hard, who are intelligent and savvy business people deserve to share all their gains while others benefit from their labour and do nothing, no, what is fair is to raise taxes in such a way that allows those who have less to be able to keep more of their earnings to save, live a better life and have opportunities to move ahead and maybe even become one of the millionaires that the sales pitch of the "American Dream" pushes constantly, and those who have more to be taxed in such a way they can contribute more to society. The way things are today it is very hard for those at the bottom to move ahead. There is very little that people can do without Amazon, Wal-Mart, and other big corporations providing cheaper solutions, better marketing, and driving them out of business, the odds are against the little guy.

And no, the solution is not "Socialism", no one seems to understand what "Socialism" is, it is just a theory that doesn't work, it has never been implemented successfully, it is an entry for dictators who convince the masses with wonderful rhetoric that can only live in fantasy novels.

[MarvinGardens]

17. It might be this one you are thinking about.

Nick Hanauer, 2014.

He kind of looks like Mark Cuban.

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

[Liberalhammer]

21. I perfer the Guillotine

The french masterd correcting wealth inequality. Im speaking metaphorically of course.

[Eyeball_Kid]

29. Restraint against greed must be institutional.

No corporation or billionaire entrepreneur can be expected to voluntarily become less greedy. We're not built that way. The body politic must decide, then execute and enforce a policy that restrains greed. There are no saviors here. There is only societal action.

IMO, Socialism is as successful as Democracy. Both are not successfully implemented as universal policy. The "Democracy" attribution to the US' political system is utter nonsense. It's as democratic as socialistic countries are socialistic-- not very pure. Ever. The US is capitalistic and fascistic, socialistic and representative/democratic. All attributes fit with fact. The repesentative/democratic institutions are weakening and fascism is ascending. We need to come to terms with these facts and face the situation.

[Dr. T]

11. It's called Trickle Up Poverty

and these guys might be starting to realize that they are going to end up like the rest of us when the other 99% doesn't have enough money to buy the crap that their companies produce. Henry Ford had the right idea when he wanted to pay people on the assembly line enough money to buy the products they produced.

[Eyeball_Kid]

31. Money issues are nothing. Wait...

When we're being suffocated by an atmosphere that holds lethal amounts of methane, that's when the real issues will surface. Then it will be too late. Like an early morning sci-fi scribbler, I'll surmise that millions of deaths will occur from methane clouds that will sweep across the land masses. It's not silly and it's not funny. It's far outside our framing of reality. But that reality frame doesn't fit with facts, regardless of our reluctance to change it.

[Hotler]

12. Suck it Jamie. If these fucker feel a little bit on edge, that's a good thing.

Maybe we should up the pressure and start picking on the rich more, through our thoughts on social media etc. It wouldn't hurt for them to feel a little scared instead of just being on edge.

[BlueIdaho]

13. Corporations with a Conscience?

Bullshit. This is marketing pure and simple - just like Compassionate Conservatism.

[Sherman A1]

34. Precisely

and it is nothing more.

[Maxheader]

19. The corp wienys are dependant on us small guys

to put money into stocks..mutual funds etc....

So don't fuck with the basic investors mantra...You make money...so do I...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

22. Shareholder profits can take a back seat. Maximizing CEO salaries? That's the number 1 goal.

Keep minimum wage low, so the bosses can afford the private jets, yachts, chalets.

[Scruffy1]

23. We have a winner.

.I've heard this kind of crap from mangement my whole life. Management will always give shareholders just enough profits to keep them happy. The norm is about 8% on the bottom line. If it's more it usually dissappears into "expenses". You know, neceary things like luxury jets, stock options for them and their friends, plush offices,company provided perks and of course hiring friends and family at do nothing jobs at high salalries.

[paleotn]

24. Ya think!?

When did this little gem dawn on them? Undergrad management 101?

And these clowns are running America's top companies. Kind of like an orange loon running our government.

[DeminPennswoods]

25. Trying to hold off the barbarians at the gate

is what this is all about.

Tom Steyer was on MSNBC a week or so ago. I think he was asked about his career as a hedge fund operator. Steyer explained that there were past court cases decided that required companies to put shareholder interests above all else and that's what they've been doing ever since. That was history with which I wasn't familiar, but believe Steyer knows what he's talking about on the subject.

[Eyeball_Kid]

28. Were corporations really "people", they'd be diagnosed as sociopaths.

And then they could file for disability payments!

[RockRaven]

26. If corps supposedly cared so much about shareholder profits in the last few decades, why the hell

did they diverting so much of the corporations' revenues into executive compensation instead of adding that money to shareholder dividends, or, failing that, stock buybacks? :crickets:

Oh right, because they weren't even doing the thing they now pretend they care about not doing. The thing they WANT you to believe was their big failing all along. But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

[Eyeball_Kid]

27. Human nature: Greed must be restrained from the outside.

We can't expect for-profit corporations to become humanistic. It's virtually impossible, legally, structurally, and historically. Dimon is a PR manager, not an educator in the field of human nature. He knows the value of a good public face, and that's what he's painting.

Watch what they do, not what they say.

[KT2000]

30. Wish this was true

how many are going to give up their mega million bonuses.

[Tiggeroshii]

32. Cool! Ill file this securely under the rest of the "no shit, Sherlock" files

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

35. There's a couple of bits of economic history you should be aware of

In 1970, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he wrote, "There is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

This has been taken by the people running corporations as meaning that the sole responsibility of business is to maximize profits.

As another economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."


There is also something called "the iron law of wages", a term apparently invented by Marx, although he was only describing it, not advocating it. It held that the market price of labor would always, or almost always, tend toward the minimum required for the subsistence of the laborers.