Check out the Alberta Venture magazine and the "Odd Man Out" column. It is a commentary piece with myself of Cambridge Strategies Inc, Fil Fraser, Dr. Tony Fields of the Alberta Cancer Board and Janet Keeping of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership.
This a regular column I participate in for Alberta Venture magazine focused on ethical issues in business.
I would be interested in reader feedback on the issue discussed.
There is no such thing as corporate social welfare. Directors of a corporation have a legal responsibilty to maximize profit to the benefit of the shareholders.
ReplyDeleteThat does not include being green unless the articles of incororation are amended.
Yes the Chicago School of Economics of Milton Friedman's simple-minded single focus function of corporate responsibility is alive and well in some hearts as per Anon @ 11:03 He is so 1950s.
ReplyDeleteThose who believe the legal-fictional "persons" known as corporations need not be green unless they say so themselves in their own constanting documents run serious mission critical risks to the sustainability of their enterprises.
Boycotts, protests, class actions on health and safety, regulatory enforcement, loss of access to public assets, just for a few. Those who operate using public assets or in regulated domains like all resource corporations, communications corporations and even banks to a degree, all need a social license to operate. These days, that means a standard of behaviour beyond the minimium required by law.
Profitability is a pre-requisite but not the sole purpose of private enterprise.
Responsibility and accountability obligatoins put on private corporations means there is no free lunch in the free marketplace. Quality companies know and welcome this reality.
Anon’s thinking behind his comment is shallow, narrow and deficient and dangerous to the corporations themselves. I wonder who he/she really is!
To the contrary, any funds expended by the corporation must be made for the purpose of earning a profit. To do otherwise would be to breach the director's fiduciary duty. Having said that, if the board of directors does a study that states some environmental moves may get them direct returns (e.g. in terms of more customers, etc.) then that would meet their economic objective.
ReplyDeleteRetake your corporate law course. You are out to lunch on their being a corporate social responsibility principle in Canada. Maybe a couple liberal profs want one but that does not mean it exists.
Poor Anon - he thinks the law is the only measure of corporate responsibility. And the only way to improve the bottom line is mere adherance to the letter of the law.
ReplyDeleteWhat a stark and dark view of the world. I remember the days when the ecomony was there to serve the needs of society not the other way around as Anon would have it.
Why not bring back slavery Anon? It would help improve cash flow and is sure to boost the bottom line.