Can a Broader Corporate Purpose Redress Inequality? The Stakeholder Approach Chimera

M. Gatti, Chrystin D. Ondersma
{"title":"Can a Broader Corporate Purpose Redress Inequality? The Stakeholder Approach Chimera","authors":"M. Gatti, Chrystin D. Ondersma","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3547791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Economic inequality is soaring and the consensus in some circles is that corporations’ myopic focus on profits is largely to blame. At first glance a stakeholder approach would seem an appealing solution: surely if the purpose of corporations were not wealth maximization for shareholders but rather to create value for all constituents — thus including employees, customers, suppliers, and communities — we would make strides towards combating inequality, the theory goes. Corporations themselves, through their powerful lobbying group, the Business Roundtable, recently disclaimed shareholder primacy and embraced stakeholder theory. However, far from successfully redressing inequality, a stakeholder approach is unlikely to achieve meaningful redistribution of power and resources to weaker constituents and would likely work in the opposite direction. We suggest that a stakeholder approach gives corporate executives both a sword and a shield with which to preserve their advantageous status quo. First, executives can justify stepped up lobbying efforts as part of their mandate to consider the interests of all constituents, capturing the agenda with respect to distributing more power and resources to weaker constituents. Second, because a switch to a stakeholder approach would appear as a significant change — despite not actually accomplishing meaningful redistribution — it would require significant political capital to be adopted, and once adopted would occupy an out-sized portion of legislative and regulatory space, depleting energy and resources necessary to pass reform that is more likely to actually impact inequality. In fact, in reviewing the likely drivers of inequality, we find that key factors include higher concentration leading to the shrinking of the labor share and increased monopsony in labor markets, the gradual weakening of worker protections from labor market institutions, and giving up on progressive taxation as a re-distributive mechanism. Broadening corporate purpose alone would do next to nothing to impact these fields, so to address rampant economic inequality corporate scholars will need to eschew the academic silo and reach across disciplines to identify more effective policies.","PeriodicalId":347848,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance & Management eJournal","volume":"17 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance & Management eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3547791","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Economic inequality is soaring and the consensus in some circles is that corporations’ myopic focus on profits is largely to blame. At first glance a stakeholder approach would seem an appealing solution: surely if the purpose of corporations were not wealth maximization for shareholders but rather to create value for all constituents — thus including employees, customers, suppliers, and communities — we would make strides towards combating inequality, the theory goes. Corporations themselves, through their powerful lobbying group, the Business Roundtable, recently disclaimed shareholder primacy and embraced stakeholder theory. However, far from successfully redressing inequality, a stakeholder approach is unlikely to achieve meaningful redistribution of power and resources to weaker constituents and would likely work in the opposite direction. We suggest that a stakeholder approach gives corporate executives both a sword and a shield with which to preserve their advantageous status quo. First, executives can justify stepped up lobbying efforts as part of their mandate to consider the interests of all constituents, capturing the agenda with respect to distributing more power and resources to weaker constituents. Second, because a switch to a stakeholder approach would appear as a significant change — despite not actually accomplishing meaningful redistribution — it would require significant political capital to be adopted, and once adopted would occupy an out-sized portion of legislative and regulatory space, depleting energy and resources necessary to pass reform that is more likely to actually impact inequality. In fact, in reviewing the likely drivers of inequality, we find that key factors include higher concentration leading to the shrinking of the labor share and increased monopsony in labor markets, the gradual weakening of worker protections from labor market institutions, and giving up on progressive taxation as a re-distributive mechanism. Broadening corporate purpose alone would do next to nothing to impact these fields, so to address rampant economic inequality corporate scholars will need to eschew the academic silo and reach across disciplines to identify more effective policies.
更广泛的企业目标能解决不平等问题吗?利益相关者方法
经济不平等正在加剧,一些圈子的共识是,企业对利润的短视是主要原因。乍一看,利益相关者的方法似乎是一个有吸引力的解决方案:当然,如果公司的目的不是为股东创造财富最大化,而是为所有组成部分(包括员工、客户、供应商和社区)创造价值,那么我们将在打击不平等方面取得长足进步。企业本身,通过其强大的游说团体商业圆桌会议(Business Roundtable),最近也放弃了股东至上的立场,转而接受了利益相关者理论。然而,利益相关者方法远没有成功地解决不平等问题,它不太可能实现有意义的权力和资源再分配给弱势群体,而且可能适得其反。我们认为,利益相关者方法给企业高管提供了一把剑和一个盾牌,以保持其有利的现状。首先,高管们可以为加大游说力度辩护,认为这是他们考虑所有选民利益的职责的一部分,在向弱势选民分配更多权力和资源方面把握议程。其次,由于转向利益相关者的方式似乎是一项重大变革——尽管实际上并没有实现有意义的再分配——它将需要大量的政治资本来采用,而且一旦采用,将占据很大一部分立法和监管空间,耗尽通过改革所需的精力和资源,而改革更有可能真正影响不平等。事实上,在回顾不平等的可能驱动因素时,我们发现关键因素包括导致劳动份额缩小和劳动力市场垄断加剧的集中度提高,劳动力市场制度对工人的保护逐渐减弱,以及放弃将累进税作为再分配机制。仅仅扩大企业目标对这些领域几乎没有任何影响,因此,为了解决猖獗的经济不平等问题,企业学者需要避开学术孤岛,跨越学科,找出更有效的政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信