High doubt. Nothing happens until actual humans with empathy run companies. A board want profit and couldn’t care less. How many companies rely on slave labour. We know that companies in China have horrific working conditions and yet do nothing to reduce or reliance on them.
Agreed. And even worse, empathetic people are not selected to run companies. Even if they did try to put something ahead of money, they’d get kicked out of leadership immediately.
Sounds like you’re aware of the corporate workings, but for those that aren’t: The board is entirely profit-driven representation of the investors. They select the executives who run the company.
If executives don’t do everything possible to increase shareholder value, they’ll be replaced. Period. This fiduciary duty is also quite literally the biggest and arguably the only real legal responsibility the board and executives have to uphold. (Sure, avoid criminal action is up there, but it’s forgivable if profits are good enough… and no one is ever personally accountable for white collar crime.)
This is how the machine is set up. And that’s why proper regulation is key. Companies should see profits decrease when they do actions that harm society, increase when their actions benefit society. Taxes, fines, and a regulatory framework that prohibits certain behaviors (e.g., polluting public spaces) are the tools to correct greed-focused shitty behavior. It’s the difference between developed economies with a strong middle class and a nice environment, and undeveloped ones with a handful of rich people living in a slice of luxury while everyone else suffers in disgusting conditions.
This article focuses on disclosure, which could help in two ways. (1) reduce demand from eco-conscious customers, which unfortunately has proved to be relatively ineffective so far, and (2) move specific funding away. ESG investing is the primary concern. If board members are there to represent ESG investors (a growing sector), then they might have to account for something other than profits. It’s still doesn’t really hold as much weight under the true legal responsibilities (fiduciary duty is a VERY serious duty), but it’s a start.
We really have to do more than basic disclosures and hoping for customers or ESG investing to save everything. Proper regulation is vital.
Which is why we need a new system. Money is the root of all evil. It’s pretty pointless in most situations. Need new rules to rectify the amassing of wealth.
We definitely do. But a few modifications could change the corporate system in a dramatic way. If we forced companies to account for the harm they cause, that would rapidly shift behavior.
If you want to prioritize environmental behavior: Carbon-based taxes are one example, but there are plenty that can generate similar positive behavior changes. Even just basic regulations to tell them exactly what is and is not allowed. We’ve already successfully done with the EPA starting in thr 70s, we just didn’t keep up with it and instead allowed it to reverse.
If you want to prioritize income distribution: Minimum wage was once incredibly powerful. In today’s world, I envision a ratio of executive to average worker pay being crucial (along with a better minimum wage). We should also enact a progressive tax system because it is not currently behaving as one. Once again, both of these have already been done with some success and can be brought up to speed to correct what we need corrected.
Whatever the specific problem is, there’s almost always a way to enact legislation that can change the behavior. Correcting the legislative process is the first step, and even that can be done with the swipe of a pen (legislate over Citizens United and get rid of dark money influence).
I’m not saying this is all easy to do, especially with the current mess we’re in. But it is possible under this system to create a better world, despite still having tons of money and a mostly capital-driven economy.
High doubt. Nothing happens until actual humans with empathy run companies. A board want profit and couldn’t care less. How many companies rely on slave labour. We know that companies in China have horrific working conditions and yet do nothing to reduce or reliance on them.
Agreed. And even worse, empathetic people are not selected to run companies. Even if they did try to put something ahead of money, they’d get kicked out of leadership immediately.
Sounds like you’re aware of the corporate workings, but for those that aren’t: The board is entirely profit-driven representation of the investors. They select the executives who run the company.
If executives don’t do everything possible to increase shareholder value, they’ll be replaced. Period. This fiduciary duty is also quite literally the biggest and arguably the only real legal responsibility the board and executives have to uphold. (Sure, avoid criminal action is up there, but it’s forgivable if profits are good enough… and no one is ever personally accountable for white collar crime.)
This is how the machine is set up. And that’s why proper regulation is key. Companies should see profits decrease when they do actions that harm society, increase when their actions benefit society. Taxes, fines, and a regulatory framework that prohibits certain behaviors (e.g., polluting public spaces) are the tools to correct greed-focused shitty behavior. It’s the difference between developed economies with a strong middle class and a nice environment, and undeveloped ones with a handful of rich people living in a slice of luxury while everyone else suffers in disgusting conditions.
This article focuses on disclosure, which could help in two ways. (1) reduce demand from eco-conscious customers, which unfortunately has proved to be relatively ineffective so far, and (2) move specific funding away. ESG investing is the primary concern. If board members are there to represent ESG investors (a growing sector), then they might have to account for something other than profits. It’s still doesn’t really hold as much weight under the true legal responsibilities (fiduciary duty is a VERY serious duty), but it’s a start.
We really have to do more than basic disclosures and hoping for customers or ESG investing to save everything. Proper regulation is vital.
Which is why we need a new system. Money is the root of all evil. It’s pretty pointless in most situations. Need new rules to rectify the amassing of wealth.
We definitely do. But a few modifications could change the corporate system in a dramatic way. If we forced companies to account for the harm they cause, that would rapidly shift behavior.
If you want to prioritize environmental behavior: Carbon-based taxes are one example, but there are plenty that can generate similar positive behavior changes. Even just basic regulations to tell them exactly what is and is not allowed. We’ve already successfully done with the EPA starting in thr 70s, we just didn’t keep up with it and instead allowed it to reverse.
If you want to prioritize income distribution: Minimum wage was once incredibly powerful. In today’s world, I envision a ratio of executive to average worker pay being crucial (along with a better minimum wage). We should also enact a progressive tax system because it is not currently behaving as one. Once again, both of these have already been done with some success and can be brought up to speed to correct what we need corrected.
Whatever the specific problem is, there’s almost always a way to enact legislation that can change the behavior. Correcting the legislative process is the first step, and even that can be done with the swipe of a pen (legislate over Citizens United and get rid of dark money influence).
I’m not saying this is all easy to do, especially with the current mess we’re in. But it is possible under this system to create a better world, despite still having tons of money and a mostly capital-driven economy.
Only way to change things is to bring society and humanity to the brink. But not go past it. How likely is that