Global Responsibility

Archives

  • July 2023
  • December 2022
  • October 2022
  • June 2022
  • April 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • July 2021
  • May 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • July 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • November 2017
  • August 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • October 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • January 2016
  • October 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • March 2013
  • January 2013
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • August 2011

Categories

  • Blog
Subscribe
Global Responsibility
Global Responsibility
  • Visit GRLI Website
  • Blog

Business profit versus business purpose

  • 18 September 2012
  • 5 minute read
Total
0
Shares
0
0
0

If we want a sustainable economy we first need to take a closer look at the purpose of business.

In 1970, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman published a famous article The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits in the New York Times Magazine. For decades, the article served as the dogmatic backbone to legitimize a narrow concept of the purpose of business: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game”. He goes on to explain that in a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business with direct responsibility to his employers.

That responsibility involves conducting business in accordance with the owner’s desires, which generally consists of making as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society. If a corporate executive announces social responsibilities as a businessperson the statement can either be treated as a) meaningless rhetoric or b) a negative proposal that threatens the interests of the employees. According to Friedman, if owners wish to perform an act of social responsibility they should do so on their own and not at the expense of employees.

This message is reinforced by the shareholder value concept, originally developed by Alfred Rappaport. Taking Friedman’s belief that management should first and foremost consider the interest of shareholders in their decisions, he developed a method to evaluate the shareholder value of different strategic decisions based on the estimation of future cash flow streams. Rappaport’s method has become very popular and is widely used (or abused) by companies and business analysts alike. Although the pursuit of short-term profit maximization was not his intention , the shareholder value concept became synonymous with short-term value maximization in the shareholders’ and managers’ own interests. In the context of “quarterly capitalism” and the extensive use of stock options to align the interests of managers and shareholders, Friedman’s message became identified as the doctrine of “greed is good”.

The Friedmanian doctrine — coupled with the shareholder value concept and stock option plans — has proven to be a powerful argument in favor of legitimizing ever-increasing profits and private income of shareholders and managers alike. Other interpretations were decried by Friedman as being socialist and ineffective. Yet, the fundamental questions remain: why should business be directly responsible only to the owners or shareholders? Why not to employees, customers or society in general, as many others have suggested? What gives owners such crucial importance for business? And just who are the owners in times of dispersed investor capitalism?

As capitalism evolved from entrepreneurial capitalism to managerial capitalism and into the current form of investor capitalism, ownership has been replaced by investment. Until the Second World War, owners effectively were identical to managers, a situation still found in many family businesses today, with no differences in interest between these two groups. Businesses were managed according to the long-term interests of the owners and their families. Responsibility was direct and personal, with the owner-manager often playing an important role in their communities. A key issue concerns the separation of the rights of ownership (or profit) from the responsibilities of ownership across the global economic system through the universal adoption of a system of limited liability, which commenced at the end of the nineteenth century.

With the rise of employed managers, a new class of professional administrators took over the management function in business, pushing entrepreneurial capitalism into managerial capitalism. This development was first analyzed by Berle and Means in 1932 in a study that focused on how legal ownership became separated from effective corporate control in the United States.

During the 1970s and 1980s we witnessed the arrival of investor capitalism. Since then, institutional investors adopted the role of owners, mostly managing their holdings for short-term profit, while ‘real’ owners were downgraded to the status of financial investors. Ownership in times of investor capitalism has lost its former clout, defined by long-term perspectives and responsibility of risk.

Given how ‘real’ ownership is being replaced by investment, it may be more accurate to treat most current shareholders as investors. Given that the average holding period for U.S. equities has decreased from 7 years in the 1970s to 7 months today, we may even want to call them speculators. Worse still, “hyper speed” traders — some of whom hold stocks for only a few seconds — now account for 70 percent of all U.S. equities trading.

Although the somewhat situation may be different in other parts of the world, the trend towards short-termism is spreading globally. Quite simply, investors are mostly involved for higher returns in favour of pride and sense of responsibility which owners used to have. If investors are not satisfied with the returns or find a more promising investment, they give up their ownership without a second thought. Businesses are under increasing pressure to meet investors’ expectations, in order to maintain their share price and ensure access to new capital.

Other business concepts have been explored in the past. Peter Drucker, who has been called the man who invented the concept of management, developed a broader concept of the purpose of business. For Drucker, profits may be the result of management but they are not its purpose. Profit is the price a business has to pay to the owners to stay in business but profit should not serve as a guiding principle of business management. For Drucker, the purpose of business lies within society — given that business is an element of society, just like any other institution.

Drucker defined the dimensions of management as economic performance, making work productive and the workers successful, and considering the impact on society. Every social institution exists for a specific purpose. In the case of the business enterprise the specific purpose is economic performance, which is intimately tied to supplying goods and services to customers in an economical way. The second task of management is to make work productive and the worker successful. As business has only one true resource — people — management performs by making human resources productive. Drucker’s third dimension is managing the social impacts and the social responsibilities of business. He specifies: “None of our institutions exists by itself and as end in itself. Everyone is an organ of society and exists for the sake of society. “Free enterprise” cannot be justified as being good for business. It can be justified only as being good for society.” In comparing these three dimensions Drucker makes it clear that it is impossible to separate these functions, each of which has a primacy of its own. Managing these dimensions has to be done at the same time and within the same managerial action.

In the meantime, the business of business largely concerns short-term profit — but we beginning to realise that it is no longer enough.

Total
0
Shares
Tweet 0
Share 0
Share 0
Previous Article
  • Blog

Leader know thyself

  • 14 September 2012
View Post
Next Article
  • Blog

Safe and powerful learning environments

  • 23 September 2012
View Post
You May Also Like
View Post
  • Blog

 Peter Møllgaard appointed chair of the GRLI

  • The GRLI
  • 15 July 2023
View Post
  • Blog

A message from our Chair

  • The GRLI
  • 9 December 2022
View Post
  • Blog

Is insistence on growth the elephant in the room?

  • The GRLI
  • 12 October 2022
View Post
  • Blog

A Call to Prospective GRLI Guardians and Board Members

  • The GRLI
  • 26 June 2022
View Post
  • Blog

Outcomes: Responsible Leadership Reimagined Conference

  • John North
  • 1 April 2022
View Post
  • Blog

Teaching Responsible Leadership, Moral Imagination and Stakeholder Dilemma Reconciliation:

  • The GRLI
  • 26 January 2022
View Post
  • Blog

A Message from GRLI Foundation Chair Claire Maxwell

  • The GRLI
  • 21 December 2021
View Post
  • Blog

What Transformation Catalysts Do to Catalyze System Change

  • The GRLI
  • 24 November 2021
Featured Posts
  •  Peter Møllgaard appointed chair of the GRLI
    • 15 July 2023
  • A message from our Chair
    • 9 December 2022
  • Is insistence on growth the elephant in the room?
    • 12 October 2022
  • A Call to Prospective GRLI Guardians and Board Members
    • 26 June 2022
  • Outcomes: Responsible Leadership Reimagined Conference
    • 1 April 2022

Subscribe

Subscribe now to our newsletter

The Global Responsibility blog hosted by the GRLI provides a record of the ongoing collaborative inquiry into the development of global responsibility in how we learn, live and lead.

The Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative is the leading incubator for innovation and new practice in business schools and for collaboration with business in the space of ethics, responsibility, and sustainability.

https://grli.org

  • About GRLI
  • Events
  • What’s important now
Global Responsibility
https://responsibility.global

Input your search keywords and press Enter.