Other commentators – Page 2 – Escondido Framework

Role of stakeholders in purposeful business

The second session in the British Academy Future of the Corporation – Purpose Summit took place earlier this afternoon, with a focus on the role of stakeholders in purposeful business. The proposition in the Escondido Framework that what most people call stakeholders should be thought of as customers of the firm is at odds with conventional stakeholder theory, but for the purpose of this review I will talk about stakeholders as conventionally understood.

Some of the richest material in the session came from Victoria Hurth from the Judge Institute, although perhaps I reach this conclusion because the language she employs comes closest to that used in the Escondido Framework model of the firm. She framed her introduction to the session by talking about the relationship of corporate purpose to stakeholders being one in which the role of the market is to mediate the pressures from stakeholders. She also talked about tapping the wisdom of shareholders to give meaning to the purpose of the company, which may be another way of looking at the Escondido Framework view that the organisation exists to resolve the symbiotic needs of the stakeholders. She wrapped her introduction with an argument about need for diversity on boards to help with a paradigm shift away from a shareholder value driven model of the firm to one driven by purpose in the service of stakeholders – but without demonstrating the logic behind her argument. There may well be plenty of meat underlying her assertion, but today she did not have the time to make this part of her case.

Frances O’Grady, from the TUC, made the case for hearing the voice of the workforce on the boardroom, referring back to Theresa May’s proposals for changes to corporate governance and the subsequent review that I contributed to and commented on in 2016 and 2017. She explained that she is agnostic about whether worker representation should be in the context of a unitary board or a two tier board following the model in some northern European countries. She also argued for a change to directors’ duties, by implication beyond those set out in Section 172 of the Companies Act requiring them to take account of all stakeholders, to require more focus on the long term.

Dan Labbard, CEO of the Crown Estate (an organisation whose roots go back to 1066 and William the Conqueror) addressed the question of whether a focus on purpose creates additional risk to the corporation. He argued that a focus on purpose equips the corporation to recognise and then organise to address risk, in contrast to a primary focus on profit. He build on this argument by encouraging organisations to proactively go out to their stakeholders with a purpose led strategy, rather than merely responding to stakeholders, and to look at risk through a stakeholder perspective.

Jim Snabe chairs two of Europe’s biggest corporations, Siemens and Maersk. He framed his concerns around the impact on companies of globalisation, technological change and the climate crisis. He argued for leadership anchored in corporate purpose, which describes as explaining why your organisation exists. Leading two companies with two tier boards, he is an enthusiast for this model, explain that the “management board drives the bus” while the supervisory board “sets the GPS”. He sees four roles for the supervisory board: ensuring the strategy is correct by asking the right questions; ensuring that the strategy is aligned with the United Nations strategic development goals; promoting the next generation of leadership; and defining success in terms of addressing the needs of all stakeholders.

Colin Mayer opened the responses to questions by observing that it is difficult, notwithstanding the variety of means that can be considered (different board structures, consultative bodies, citizen juries), to capture the views of stakeholders. (for the Escondido Framework perspective, visit the section of this site addressing governance and some of the relevant earlier posts).

Markets, State and People by Diane Coyle

Rousseau observed that “Man is born free but everywhere is in chains”. Many people in business, politics and media talk about markets in a similar way, as though “free markets” are the natural state and desirable order and any intervention by an agency of the state or collective popular action is represents an undesirable fettering of enterprise.

Economists since Adam Smith have recognised that markets can fail and may need to be subject to intervention. Even figures as inspiring to simplistic supporters of free markets as Milton Friedman recognise that there are proper roles for the state where markets fail.

Diane Coyle starts in much the same place as other economists who look at limits of markets and the place of government intervention in markets. She starts with conventional analysis of market failures, listing seven instances of failure in the conditions required for free markets to be efficient. She returns these seven types of failure throughout her examination of the relationship between markets, the state and people, and description of the appropriateness of state intervention or collective action to address.

In cataloguing the failures and the responses to them, Coyle assists the reader, from the economics or politics undergraduate or MBA student getting their first exposure to welfare economics and public policy, through to the general reader seeking a better understanding of how the world works. She draws on and explains clearly the work of people like Coase, Ostrom and Thaler who have broadened and deepened our understanding of how people both cause and respond to the seven types of failure she describes. The book is furthered enriched, and the lessons consequently rendered more accessible, by a peppering of case studies illustrating the core arguments.

Coyle also tackles government failure, highlighting the shortcomings in bureaucracies (or among public servants) and as a consequence of political failures (or failures of politicians) that result in the application of the wrong policies to address the market failures. The text seems to peter out in the final chapter where she addresses what she appears to hope is the solution to the problems of government failure, which is the application of evidence to economic policy. In this chapter that she reveals the limitations of her experience as a career academic and regulator, with a rather slight addressing of the use of statistics and cost benefit analysis. This doesn’t detract from the power (or readability) of the previous nine chapters, but point to the opportunity for someone else to write something of similar tone and quality to fill the gap on how to test public policy initiatives to address market failure.

Investors should look below the bottom line – says the FT

“This newspaper has welcomed the shift among corporate leaders from a narrow focus on shareholder value to the pursuit of a broader purpose — for a hard-headed reason: when business takes a broad perspective, it can leave everyone more prosperous, including shareholders. Rejecting the dogma of shareholder primacy is not a question of bleeding hearts, it is a matter of enlightened self-interest.” So says the FT editorial board in a powerful opinion piece today, before going on to argue that investors should follow suit.

The FT argues that there are two reasons for the investors to look beyond the bottom line and consider the impact of business decisions on climate and the environment and on workers and the communities they operate in. The first is that by ignoring the impending crises facing us, a corporate focus on shareholders alone contributes to the political neglect of the problems and can stand in the way of solutions. The second relates to the way that many investments are held by shareholders, through diversified portfolios intermediated by managed funds. The result of this is the ultimate investors (people like me with investment through pension funds, insurance policies and ISAs[1]) are in effect “universal investors” exposed to hundreds or thousands of individual companies, fortunes. As the FT team observe: “Their returns depend on that of the private sector overall. When one company profits by “externalising” its costs, that may flatter its bottom line only by losing investors more money in other companies which pay the price.”

Consequently, investors and company leaders both have an interest in internalising the externalities rather than ignoring them. But the FT finds that both company and investment managers feels constrained in doing so, and it argues that government should look at ways of changing the legal frameworks that shape behaviour by corporate leaders and fund managers.

My own belief is that there is evidence that some corporate leaders and some fund managers (notably Baillie Gifford who I got to know well over a period of nine years as the finance committee chair of an asset rich charity) do take the wider perspective and longer term into account and, in the UK at least, what is at issue is not so much the legal framework but the career paths, knowledge bases, incentive mechanisms, cultural biases and social norms in the City and in our board rooms.

[1] Individual Saving Accounts – the UK tax sheltered scheme for smaller retail investors

“A slow dawning that most companies are run pretty badly”

Sarah Gordon has written a memorable reflection today on her 20 years writing for the FT.

She reflects on a career with the paper that started with writing about what were in the early years of the millennium breaking technologies but which have been mainstream for so long that we can’t imagine life before them, which continued through the years of the Financial Crash and the great depression and bull run that has followed. She writes about the routine reports of company news stories and mind-numbing performance data, and the occasional more gossipy pieces that appear to have been what the readers found more engaging than the hard news.

She found clearing her desk brought back memories of the events and personalities that have filled the business and company pages of the paper of the past two decades, and anyone reading the article be a share in the trip down memory lane.

Reflecting on these years, she reaches very strong conclusions about shortcomings in governance in response to the accretion of overweening power at the heart of companies. She cites Dick Fudd at Lehman Brothers. He is an easy target, but her description of what went wrong is compelling: “board members neither delved deeply enough into the real activities of the bank, nor did they challenge the person running it sufficiently. Being on the Lehman board, it seemed, was a social honour rather than a fiduciary responsibility.” Writing of people like Martin Sorrell, who spent 33 years at the top of WPP, she observes: “Business bosses who enjoy too long a tenure lose self-awareness. They become reluctant to promote people around them who will challenge their point of view. Meanwhile, questioning a boss who enjoys such stature becomes all but impossible, encouraging hubris, and leading to bad business decisions.”

Gordon reflects that such problems, with accompanying shortcomings in governance, are not restricted to the private sector. She cites the example of Camila Batmanghelidjh and the failure of Kids Company in 2015. I reflect also on the ignominious departure of Sir Leonard Fenwick would was finally dismissed for Gross Misconduct by the board of Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, where he had been chief executive since 1998 having previously led one of its predecessor organisations since 1992.

She also reflects on the poisonous value destruction in so many big corporate deals, which appear to be motivated by executive greed and supported by a flawed network of advisory institutions corrupted by perverse incentives.

Her time at the FT was a journey of personal discovery and growing disillusion (albeit one shared by most of in parallel in other parts of our lives) : “As a child, lucky enough to grow up in comfortable circumstances in London, I simply assumed that the world was run efficiently by the grown-ups. It has been a slow — and sometimes painful — dawning that in fact most companies are run pretty badly.”

Gordon is hardly less critical of other institutions, regulators and politicians. She also appears to despair that the wider lack of economic and financial literacy, and the gullibility of much of the general public. She suggests that a public that feels exploited and even robbed by corporate excesses does, in some part, have itself to blame.

But she stresses that it is not business itself, as opposed to individual businesses, to blame, but it is within the power of business to improve popular understanding and dispel the blame:

“Many businesses are badly run, but business is not bad. Most people running companies whom I have met over the past 18 years care about the people they employ. Most entrepreneurs believe that there is a purpose to running their company which is greater than just making money.

“The voices of big business, and the big business baddies, too often drown out the stories from the millions of small companies that make up the bulk of employers in the UK and across the globe. I’ve interviewed many of them in the past few years, in Scotland, outside Cambridge, in Bilbao and Munich. Many are family-run, on the second or third generation, focused on building sustainable businesses. Unlike the UK’s big supermarkets, gouging dairy farmers with ever lower milk prices, they have long and mutually dependent relationships with their suppliers. They look after their staff, turning apprentices into engineers and keeping people on their books during extended periods of illness.

“The popular caricature of business, filled with profiteering bankers and gig economy exploiters, simply does not reflect the reality. But it is up to business to dispel it.

“…… business needs to do more than change its culture. It must challenge itself on what its purpose really is, not just what its investors want. It must be prepared to tackle the great ills of our time, such as climate change or modern slavery. And it must be louder in explaining why it matters.”

Purposeful finance – in ancient Ephesus

I have always been interested in long lasting institutions. I attended Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, established by the city’s townspeople in the aftermath of the Great Plague, and lived for a year in a room in its Old Court, built in the 1350s. There was something very special about occupying a room that had seen young men* engaged in the same endeavour for over 600 years. A few years later, living in west London, I relished the occasions driving when I found myself behind removal vans owed by the local branch (sadly since renamed because the branding confused the locals) of the Aberdeen Shore Porters Society, that proclaimed its foundation in 1498.

Esra Turk wrote a fascinating article in the FT on 20 August about an even longer lasting institution, a bank rather than a college or a logistics business, albeit one that was abolished 1600 years ago by a Roman emperor, a Christian intent on stamping out pagan beliefs. The Artemision was one of the earliest known banks, operating within the great temple of Artemis (as known to the Greeks, or Diana to the Romans) at Ephesus, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Its origins were as a place to deposit wealth under the protection of the deity and predate Croesus, the first ruler to issue gold coinage, and man synonymous with great wealth and an early depositor in the Artemision.

Turk recounts how the Artemision developed to become more than just a safe deposit facility for the mega rich to evolve “into a much more sophisticated regional and international financial institution, operating not only as a reserve and depository bank, but also undertaking fiduciary and mortgage business. The accumulation of earnings and reserves were of such magnitude that it became known as the Bank of Asia”.

What was the behind its success and its longevity? As every pre-digital retailer will tell you, the first was location – Ephesus was the central junction of the ancient world. But beyond that, Turk spells out three great strengths: purpose, leadership and a clear view of risk.

Regarding purpose, Turk observes, its “sophisticated banking functions were always carried out in the sacred service of a goddess with a strong ethical code. Similarly, banks today need a guiding purpose that looks beyond financial performance and provides a clear and sustainable ethical framework”. It may be a stretch, but is there anything in the waxing and waning of some of high street financial institutions in the UK to link the points at which they have exhibited most resilience and placed themselves at great risk to the strength or weakness of their links to heritage of their Quaker and Non-conformist founders?

Regarding leadership, Turk tells us its “governance was characterised by high levels of personal and collective accountability, trust and connection to the society in which it operated”. Leadership was initially jointly vested in the high priest and priestess of the temple and later in the sole charge of a high priestess. Turk wryly describes this as “an experiment not much emulated in the subsequent 16 centuries, but perhaps worth revisiting”. Not so much the 30% Club as the 100% Club. Gender may have played its part, but I think Turk’s core message is that accountability and trust embodied in the priesthood and accountability to the deity was key to the longevity of the bank.

Regarding the clear of view of risk, Turks suggests that bank was a model of prudence and caution, deploying its own capital as well as the funds of its depositors, and restricted itself to low risk lending because the money help under the goddess’s protection had to remain inviolable. No sub-prime activity in the Artemision!

*Corpus Christi only started admitting women undergraduates in the 1980s

Should customers have come first in the GKN battle?

I don’t disagree with Michael Skapinker often, but his commentary on the successful bid by Melrose for GKN in today’s Financial Times “Customers should have come first in the GKN battle” had me getting out a metaphorical red ballpoint to mark his homework.

It was a shame. He made such a good start, rehearsing points that he has made well in the past about shareholder value:

Whose interests should companies serve? For decades, the answer, particularly in the US and the UK, was shareholders’. Total stock market return, the argument went, was clear and measurable and it kept managers focused — until Jack Welch, former General Electric boss and one of shareholder value’s greatest champions, denounced it as “the dumbest idea in the world”.

That was in 2009. Mr Welch was not the only business chief to notice that the financial crisis had shredded the idea that if companies looked after shareholders, everything else would follow. Josef Ackermann, then-head of Deutsche Bank, said: “I no longer believe in the market’s self-healing power.”

A little later in his article, I also awarded him marks for citing the late Sumantra Ghoshal of London Business for arguing in 2005 that:

the people whose contribution should be recognised first were employees, who also took the biggest risks;

shareholders could sell their shares far more easily than most employees could find another job;

and employees’ “contributions of knowledge, skills and entrepreneurship are typically more important than the contributions of capital by shareholders, a pure commodity that is perhaps in excess supply”.

Not content with citing Sumantra Ghoshal with approval, Skapinker moved on later in the article, in the context of the intervention by the Tom Williams, chief operating officer of Airbus’s commercial aircraft division, about the need for long-term investment and strategic vision in the aircraft industry, to cite “the great” Peter Drucker for saying that

the purpose of business was to create a customer. Without that customer, there are no jobs for workers, no returns for shareholders and no strategic skills for nations.

All good stuff, and essentially consistent with Escondido Framework thinking, but Skapinker and others who were unhappy at the outcome of the bid seem to have missed the point about what was happening.

During the takeover battle, much was made of the heritage of GKN, whose origins lay in the founding of the Dowlais Ironworks in the village of Dowlais, Merthyr Tydfil, Wales, by Thomas Lewis and Isaac Wilkinson ion 1759. John Guest (whose name survives in the “G” of GKN – formerly Guest Keen and Nettlefold) was appointed manager of the works in 1767, and in 1786, he was succeeded by his son, Thomas Guest, who formed the Dowlais Iron Company. However, the links to the multinational automotive and aerospace components company of 2018 are slight and accidental.

The company acquired by Melrose consists of four major divisions: GKN Aerospace (Aerostructures; Engine Products; Propulsion Systems); GKN Driveline (Driveshafts; Freight Services; Autostructures; Cylinder liners; Sheepbridge Stokes); GKN Land Systems Power Management; PowerTrain Systems & Services; Wheels and Structures; Stromag); and GKN Powder Metallurgy (Sinter Metals; Hoeganaes). This is a collection of businesses that is the outcome of over a hundred years of acquisitions and disposals across the globe¹. At least at the parent company level, there is little to suggest the opportunity for much value creation from them all being part of the same corporate entity.

What business was GKN plc in? The management of a portfolio of business units, primarily in manufacturing but some in services, spread across a range of different industries and technologies serving a variety of different types and classes of industrial customers, many but not all being OEMs.

Who were the customers of the corporate entity, as opposed to the subsidiaries (which are the entities that interface directly with the purchasers of goods and services, with their employees, and with suppliers)? Perhaps the subsidiaries themselves, insofar that they derived value from the parent company and investment funds, in return for cash returned to the parent? Perhaps the employees of the subsidiaries, at least in so far as they were beneficiaries of a corporately administered pension scheme (that, incidentally, Melrose committed to topping up with an extra £1 billion)?

Much has been made, including by Michael Skapinker in his article, of the 25% of the shares that were in the hands of hedge funds and other short term speculators who had only bought them very recently in the hope of a quick return. Presumably they bought these shares from owners who were willing to sell at a lower price against the possibility that the Melrose bid failed and the share price under the existing management team would fall.

Melrose’s argument during the takeover battle was essentially that it is a management team with a record of successful managing corporate assets who would replace a management team that has been destroying value in its management of the GKN portfolio. The commitments Melrose made along the way to the customers for the GKN subsidiaries’ goods and services and to their employers (in part evidenced by the promises relating to the pension scheme), suggest that they are not old fashioned asset strippers, selling off assets as part of strategy to wind down wealth creating business units. Rather, they appear to understand the business that the GKN plc is currently in, which is managing a portfolio of businesses, adding value to those where it can, and selling those to which other companies can add more value.

If this is indeed the approach that Melrose takes, it will reflect a mindset in which the board thinks about the businesses within the portfolio as customers for the corporate centre, recognising that if there are other corporations that can provide individual business units with a better deal, let them go. And that will make it easier to keep their customers in the capital markets, to whom they have spent the last few months marketing themselves, happy, loyal, and committed.

¹ Wikipedia history of GKN plc since 1966

Revisiting Colin Mayer’s “Firm Commitment”

I first read Firm Commitment[1] when it was first published in 2013 and found the opening chapters – which include a well-constructed critique of the shareholder value paradigm – offered the tantalising prospect that Colin Mayer might be about to expound a theory similar to the Escondido Framework description of the firm occupying a solution space bounded by market interfaces. Unable to recall where his diagnosis of the failings of the modern firm and his prescription for addressing them departed from my own, I recently revisited his book.

Returning to Firm Commitment, I rejoiced again at much of the description in the early chapters of the shortcomings in the classical model of the firm, in which share ownership is linked to provision of investment capital and the assumption of risk. In common with the Escondido Framework, he describes the company as an structure independent of ownership and sees one of its purposes being long term survival, delivering value to society at large. He comes close on occasion to describing some of the other risk bearing parties, the market related transactional considerations and the interests of different stakeholders. In particular, he bemoans the failure of corporations to engage with wider social and environmental concerns.

But rather than continuing down the path developed in the Escondido Framework he focuses on the shareholder and sees the failure of the modern corporation lying in the lack of commitment of shareholders to the company. His prescription is reform to tie in shareholders to the company, to increase their commitment to the firm – hence the book’s title. In contrast to our model, Mayer remains committed to a view that shareholders “own” the company, rather than owning pieces of paper that entitle them a share in the profits of the company and which have a value reflecting a market perspective on the discounted value of the expected future cash flows. What he is unable to explain is how tying in shareholders in this way will improve the quality of decision taking by managers, enhance their accountability, or contain their ability to extract economic rent in the form of salaries, bonuses and equity incentives.

[1] Firm Commitment, Colin Mayer, Oxford University Press 2013

It takes a village to maintain a dangerous financial system – and a corporate governance system too

Hillary Clinton popularised the African proverb “It takes a village to raise a child” when she adopted it as the title for her 1996 book. A lawyer representing victims of abuse by Catholic priests in Boston extended when interviewed in 2015 by observing that “If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse a child.” Anat Admati, George G.C. Parker Professor of Finance and Economics at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University, translates this sentiment to the financial sector in her in chapter in Just Financial Markets? Finance in a Just Society, a collection of essays edited by Lisa Herzog, published by Oxford University Press[1].

Admati’s focus is on the banking system. Her thesis is that the failings in the system, illustrated by the 2008 crash, are a result of the failures of a wide range of players, not just those working within financial institutions, but a host of regulators, commentators and other stakeholders. Very powerfully, she comments on the contrast between the finance industry and other industries (eg aviation) where safety is paramount and all consequently all the stakeholders work together to design effective regulation and where the case for compliance is compelling. But, as she points out, even the most obvious case for regulation to drive safety may require disasters and egregious failures before regulation and compliance catch up with the need (eg in nuclear power and the motor industry).

Her chapter provides a compelling account of the “wilful blindness” of principals, stakeholders, regulators and commentators on the financial system and suggests that even after the dangers inherent in the design, operation and lack of necessary regulation of the banking system were revealed in the crisis, the underlying problems remain unaddressed.

Her arguments are applicable far more widely. She has written an important paper about that should be read with an eye to how her observations can be applied to other industries and, indeed, beyond the commercial enterprises into public sector organisations and not for profit bodies.

[1]Chapter 13, It Takes a Village to Maintain a Dangerous Financial System. Abstract: I discuss the motivations and actions (or inaction) of individuals in the financial system, governments, central banks, academia and the media that collectively contribute to the persistence of a dangerous and distorted financial system and inadequate, poorly designed regulations. Reassurances that regulators are doing their best to protect the public are false. The underlying problem is a powerful mix of distorted incentives, ignorance, confusion, and lack of accountability. Willful blindness seems to play a role in flawed claims by the system’s enablers that obscure reality and muddle the policy debate.

Workforce – “not assets to be managed”

I owe thanks to Ali Webster, Assistant Director for Workforce at West London Mental Health Trust, for opening her presentation at a meeting yesterday with a compelling quotation from a 2015 King’s Fund paper on talent management[1]:

“Successful deployment of workforce talent is about rethinking your view of your employees. They are not assets to be managed but rather people with options who have chosen to invest their aspirations and motivations with your organisation for a while and who will expect a reasonable return on their investment in the form of personal growth and opportunities.”

This is Escondido Framework thinking. You do not own the people who work for you – even if the way that you treat them may leave them thinking of themselves as wage slaves. You have secured their services in a market transaction in which there are two parties, selling to each other and offering opportunities to each other. And both parties are making an investment in the relationship, with both “expect[ing] a reasonable return on their investment”.

[1] Sarah Massie, “Talent Management: Developing leadership not just leaders”. Kings Fund 2015

Is Capitalism Killing America?

I was stopped in my tracks this morning by an email from the Stanford Graduate School of Business with the subject line “Is Capitalism Killing America?”. It is not the sort of thing that the world’s top business school (at least that was how it was rated forty years ago when I was there) normally sends to its alumni.

The key feature in the email newsletter was an article with the subheading “Young & Rubicam Chairman Emeritus Peter Georgescu says it’s time to end the era of shareholder primacy[1] which reviews Georgescu’s new book Capitalists Arise! End Economic Inequality, Grow the Middle Class, Heal the Nation (Berrett-Koehler, 2017). Georgescu, a fellow Stanford GSB “alumn”, is looking to chief executives to think about how, and for whom, they run their companies.

Capitalism is an endangered economic system, Georgescu says. He cites by economist William Lazonick, who studied S&P 500 companies from 2003 to 2012 and discovered that they routinely spend 54% of their earnings buying back their own stock and 37% of their earnings on leaving just 9% of earnings for investment in their business and their people.

“Innovation is the only real driver of success in the 21st century, and who does the innovation? Our employees. How are we motivating them? We treat them like dirt. If I need you, I need you. If I don’t, you’re out of here. And I keep your wages flat for 40 years,” says Georgescu, who points out that growth in real wages has been stagnant since the mid-1970s.

Georgescu continues by noting that the lack of investment in business and their people feeds back into demand, undermining sales growth. With median household income in the US less than 1% higher today than in 1989: “There’s no middle class, and the upper middle class has very little money left to spend, so they can’t drive the economy. The only people driving the GDP are the top 20% of us”. 60% of American households are technically insolvent and adding to their debt loads each year. In addition, income inequality in the U.S. is reaching new peaks: The top layer of earners now claim a larger portion of the nation’s income than ever before — more even than the peak in 1927, just two years before the onset of the Great Depression.

Georgescu blames the ascendency of the doctrine of shareholder primacy.

“Today’s mantra is ‘maximize short-term shareholder value.’ Period,” he says. “The rules of the game have become cancerous. They’re killing us. They’re killing the corporation. They’re helping to kill the country……..

“The cure can be found in the post–World War II economic expansion. From 1945 until the 1970s, the U.S economy was booming and America’s middle class was the largest market in the world. In those days, American capitalism said, ‘We’ll take care of five stakeholders,’. Then and now, the most important stakeholder is the customer. The second most important is the employee. If you don’t have happy employees, you’re not going to have happy customers. The third critical stakeholder is the company itself — it needs to be fed. Fourth come the communities in which you do business. Corporations were envisioned as good citizens — that’s why they got an enormous number of legal protections and tax breaks in the first place.

“If you serve all the other stakeholders well, the shareholders do fine,” he says. “If you take good care of your customers, pay your people well, invest in your own business, and you’re a good citizen, the shareholder does better. We need to get back to that today. Every company has got to do that.”

It’s refreshing to hear this from one of the grand old men of the commercial world in the United States. But in his critique of “shareholder value”, he fails to single out the principal beneficiaries, the chief executives and top management teams themselves (including our fellow business school alumni) who have exploited the system to cream off an ever increasing share of the rewards in salaries, bonuses and options, all the while failing to invest in productive assets, innovation, securing long term positions with customers and local communities, and in the people who work in the companies themselves.

[1] https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/capitalism-killing-america?utm_source=Stanford+Business&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Stanford-Business-Issue-122-10-1-2017&utm_content=alumni